1. Defendant B: (a) 5% per annum from July 2, 2014 to September 18, 2014; and (b) September 19, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the pleadings as indicated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the Plaintiff: (a) on April 26, 2010, reduced the amount of KRW 85.40 square meters on the first floor among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) to KRW 5 million, KRW 500,000 per month; and (b) on April 25, 2012, leased the instant commercial building to the Defendant B by April 25, 2012; (c) on April 10, 2012, the Plaintiff continued to lease the instant commercial building to the Defendant B by April 26, 2014; (d) reduced the amount of KRW 400,000 per month; and (e) paid the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff by June 28, 2013.

According to the above facts, Defendant B pays to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 5,940,00 (=10,000 won x 12 months) of the unpaid rent and water rate until July 1, 2014. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 20,000 per annum under the Civil Act from July 2, 2014, which is the following day (the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking the payment of damages for delay for the period from June 3, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, to the day of delivery) by the Plaintiff from July 1, 2014 (the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit) to the extent of its obligation to pay damages for delay by the Defendant B from September 18, 2014, which is the date the judgment is rendered, to the extent of its obligation to pay the damages for delay calculated by 5,000 per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

The Plaintiff also claimed that Defendant C should pay KRW 940,00 and delay damages jointly and severally with Defendant B. Thus, it is recognized that Defendant C transferred approximately KRW 10,00 from Defendant B without compensation. However, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff consented to the sublease of part of the commercial building of this case among the Defendants, Defendant B is the lessor.