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

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) KRW 2,560,000 and March 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 30, 2017, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) A and the Selection Party C, and D shared 1/3 shares of each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”). On January 30, 2017, the Defendant and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff to lease three floors of the instant building by setting the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and two, including the Plaintiff, Defendant, lessee, lease deposit amount of KRW 8,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000, monthly rent of KRW 800,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly rent payment date of KRW 30,00, January 30, 2017 and January 29, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant operated the skin management room on the third floor of the instant building in accordance with the instant lease agreement, but only paid rent to the Plaintiff until March 15, 2018. On July 13, 2018, the Plaintiff and the designated parties notified the termination of the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in paying rent for three months, and filed the instant lawsuit on August 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense is merely against the 1/3 share holder of the building of this case, and thus, the plaintiff alone cannot file the lawsuit of this case because it did not have the right to decide on the management of jointly owned property. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful. However, since the appointed parties C and D, who are the remaining co-owners of the building of this case, designated the plaintiff as the designated parties and filed the lawsuit of this case, this part of the defendant'

B. According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground of the defendant's delinquency in rent. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the third floor of the building of this case to the plaintiff and pay the plaintiff with unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent and rent. 2) As to the amount of unpaid rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent, the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground of the defendant's delinquency in rent.