1. The defendant is against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C:

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the Schedule of Real Estate;

1. Lease relationship;

A. On October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff (designated parties; hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the Selection C (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs, etc.”) leased real estate listed in the attached real estate list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant as lease deposit amounting to KRW 15,00,000, KRW 715,000 (including value-added tax) and KRW 15,000 per month when the rent is paid.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff, etc. the monthly rent for February 2016, and paid only KRW 700,000 per month from March 2016 to August 2017, and did not pay the remainder KRW 15,000 per month (Provided, That the Defendant remitted KRW 100,000 to the Plaintiff, etc. on November 29, 2016), and did not pay the rent for September 2017.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff et al. is the Defendant on September 18, 2017.

On September 19, 2017, the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds of overdue delay, and the mail sent to the Defendant on September 19, 2017.

On September 19, 2017, the Defendant received the above content-certified mail, and paid KRW 1,015,000 to the Plaintiff, etc. as part of the overdue rent.

[Ground of recognition] The evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul's evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The determination of the cause of the claim shall be based on the above findings of recognition.

The instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on September 19, 2017, as the content-certified mail stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent reaches the Defendant.

(A) The Defendant paid KRW 1,015,00 to the Plaintiff, etc. immediately after the receipt of the above content-certified mail, but the effect of termination that occurred therefrom is not extinguished). As to this, the Defendant asserted that there was no difference in arrears due to the Plaintiff, etc.’s payment in cash.