1. The Defendants:

A. Of the 370.26 square meters of the 1st floor of the building indicated in the annexed building, indication 1 of the annexed drawings and 2.

1.The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including paper numbers) by integrating the purpose of the entire pleadings.

On August 3, 2012, the Plaintiffs completed registration of initial ownership relating to one half of each of the buildings indicated in the indication of the attached building (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. The Plaintiffs, while leasing the instant building to E around May 201, set the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 7,000,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the lease period from May 6, 201 to May 5, 2016, respectively.

C. On March 4, 2015, the Defendants: (a) set up, among the 370.26 square meters on the 1st floor of the instant building from E, the 39 square meters in the section (Ga) section (A) of the shop connected each point of 1,270.26 square meters on the 1st floor of the instant building, as the sub-lease deposit amounting to KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent 2,000,000; and (b) respectively, occupied and used the instant commercial building.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the lease contract on the building of this case between the plaintiffs and E was terminated on May 5, 2016, the defendants, barring any special circumstance, are obligated to deliver the commercial building of this case to the plaintiffs, and to pay the amount calculated by the ratio of KRW 2,00,000 per month from May 6, 2016 to the completion date of the delivery of the commercial building of this case as unjust enrichment.

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot respond to the claims of the Plaintiffs since they moved to the instant commercial building from E with the consent of the Plaintiffs, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that they obtained the consent of the Plaintiffs, and as long as the lease agreement on the instant building between the Plaintiffs and E was terminated due to the expiration of the term of validity, the Defendants’ right to rent expires, barring special

Therefore, the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' objection.