1.(a)

The defendant shall pay KRW 376,712 to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant shall list the plaintiff's successor in attached Form 1 to the plaintiff's successor.

1. Basic facts

A. C purchased the instant building on May 3, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the 20th of the same month. On November 5, 2013, the Plaintiff, a mother, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale.

B. On December 4, 2017, the Plaintiff sold the instant building to the intervenors, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Intervenor on February 1, 2018.

C. Since the Defendant leased the instant store from C on December 8, 2012 with a deposit of KRW 500,00, annual rent of KRW 2,500,000, and year one year, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff regarding the instant store from December 8, 2013 to December 8, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

After the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement, the Defendant resided in the instant store (a move-in report was made at the location of the instant building on January 29, 2013), and operated the source at the said store.

(D) On December 8, 2014, business registration was made at the competent tax office with the trade name "D". (e)

On November 10, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Intervenor a certificate of content that “The instant building was sold to the Intervenor. As such, on December 8, 2017, the lease term expires, the Plaintiff sent to the Intervenor a certificate of content that “the instant store was delivered to the Intervenor,” and the Defendant received the said certificate on November 14, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 (including additional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff and the Intervenor notified the Defendant that the renewal of the instant lease agreement was difficult as the purchase and sale of the instant building between the Intervenor and the Intervenor came to fall into existence, and the said lease agreement was terminated on December 7, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the plaintiff or the intervenor and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the use of the said store.