1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 1,000,000 for each Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from August 6, 2015 to June 23, 2017; and (c).

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a non-corporate body comprised of the shop occupants of the building A in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and Defendant B is a person who leased a parking lot from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant parking lot”) to operate the parking lot business, and Defendant C is the spouse of Defendant B.

On the other hand, E is the co-born of the defendant C as the head of the management office of Amera.

B. On November 12, 2009, Defendant B leased the instant parking lot from the Plaintiff to November 12, 201, with the term of November 12, 201, and operated the parking lot starting around that time. On November 9, 2011, Defendant B concluded a parking lot lease agreement with the Plaintiff regarding the instant parking lot (hereinafter “instant rental agreement”).

The lease period: From November 10, 201 to November 9, 2013: The lease period of two years: 40,000,000 won per year; and 20,000,000,000 won on November 9, 201; and the deposit amount of five million won on November 9, 2012 (effective effective as the deposit deposit for the contract deposit) shall be paid in installments: Defendant B shall be obligated to protect all machinery installation, etc. already installed in the instant parking lot; if not implemented, the Plaintiff may unilaterally reverse the lease contract even before the expiration of the contract; and even if Defendant B destroyed water during the lease period of Defendant B’s deposit to the Plaintiff, the restoration work may not be carried out against the Plaintiff.

C. On December 24, 2012, Defendant B drafted and delivered each of the following descriptions to the Plaintiff.

By November 9, 2013, upon the expiration of the lease period until the expiration of the transfer period, the contract is automatically terminated if the non-performance of the contract occurs to the successor, and at the same time there is no dispute about the ground for recognition of the transfer to the successor without delay, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and Eul evidence No. 1 [Defendant's assertion that the contract was drafted by intimidation No. 2 of this E, but it can be recognized.