1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) Of the real property listed in the separate sheet, each point is indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 27, 2003, the Plaintiffs received a gift of real estate listed in the annexed sheet and acquired ownership, and thereafter renewed the lease contract with the Defendant by leasing 52.8 square meters of stores in part (i) in the ship (hereinafter “instant store”) connected each point in the annexed sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the first floor of the instant real estate.

B. On March 31, 2017, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of lease from March 17, 2017 to March 36, 2017, with the amount of lease deposit KRW 12,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,170,000 (payment on March 17, 201).

C. The Defendant did not pay to the Plaintiffs the monthly rent after October 2018.

The Plaintiffs stated in the instant complaint the intent to terminate the lease agreement with the Defendant, and the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on April 12, 2019 on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant did not pay more than twice the rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and on this ground, the Plaintiffs’ intent to terminate the instant lease agreement reached the Defendant on April 12, 2019, and barring any special circumstance, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated, barring any special circumstance.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff upon reinstatement, and to pay the Plaintiff rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1,170,000 per month from October 17, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the instant store.

B. On October 22, 2018, the Defendant: (a) decided that Plaintiff A was “A” as “A” to the Defendant; (b) even if leakage occurred on the second floor of the instant store, the Plaintiffs did not accept; (c) forced the Defendant to make a false statement related to another lawsuit; and (d) the Plaintiff.