1. The Defendants deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list.

2. Defendant A Co., Ltd., and 18.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The cause of the instant claim is as listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, and 3. The cause of the instant claim is as follows, and each fact does not conflict between the parties.

B. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant A corporation was lawfully terminated and terminated at the time when the Plaintiff’s notice of termination was delivered to the Defendant on September 26, 2016, which was based on the delay in rent for at least three years.

Therefore, the Defendants shall deliver the instant real estate in possession, and the Defendant A, from June 23, 2017 to October 2017, as well as the amount of 4,510,000 won in arrears, each of which is calculated at the rate of 5% per annum prescribed by the Civil Act from the day following the date of service of a copy of the instant complaint until December 29, 2017, and 15% per annum prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment, shall be paid, and the Defendants are obligated to return unjust enrichment equivalent to the difference calculated at the rate of 4,510,000 won per annum from November 23, 2017 to the date of delivery of the instant real estate.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant claim is unjustifiable since the Plaintiff was unable to use the instant building by cutting electricity and cutting off the instant real estate from October 10, 2017, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff was cutting electricity and cutting off. However, according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff but the management office of the entire building on the ground that management expenses were unpaid, and the period was 15 days in total from October 14, 2017 to February 19, 2018.

The above argument is without merit.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. asserted that only only only one of the instant real estate possessed 1214 and does not occupy the remainder. However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendants can recognize the fact that they are using the provisional walls of the instant 1214 and 1215, as they are standing and jointly, and thus, Defendant B.