1. The defendant is paid KRW 3,00,000 from the plaintiffs, and at the same time, Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground D.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. (1) On September 26, 2016, E owned the instant real estate, and the Plaintiffs inherited the instant real estate. The inheritance shares are 1/2 of the Plaintiffs, respectively.

See The defendant currently occupies the real estate of this case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the plaintiffs who seek the exclusion of disturbance as a right holder of the instant real estate as part of the preservation act of the jointly owned property, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant, as the lessee of the real estate of this case, has a legitimate right to use and take profits therefrom.

In other words, the defendant leased the real estate of this case to E for a year from August 1, 2001, and the contract is renewed on August 1, 2002 and is still in existence until now.

However, the plaintiffs want to unilaterally terminate the lease contract without any justifiable reason without guaranteeing the defendant the opportunity to recover the premium.

Even if the lease contract is terminated, the instant real estate cannot be transferred to the Plaintiffs until the deposits are paid from the Plaintiffs.

B. (1) The Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E on August 1, 2001, stipulating that the instant real estate shall be leased with the lease deposit of KRW 3,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 750,000, and the lease term of KRW 750,000 from August 1, 2001 to July 31, 2002 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”); the Defendant paid the lease deposit to E; and the Defendant received the instant real estate from E at that time; and the fact that the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed on August 1, 202 is either a dispute between the parties or can be acknowledged according to the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings.

dr.