1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 57,930,000 won and its corresponding;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 2, 2014, the Plaintiff and E owned 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and leased the instant real estate as KRW 20,000,000, KRW 2,300,000, KRW 2,300,000.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement”). (b)

On July 26, 2016, the Defendant succeeded to the lessee status under the instant lease agreement. On May 11, 2017, Plaintiff B and C succeeded to the lessor status by succeeding 1/2 of the E ownership shares upon the death of E.

C. By March 5, 2019, the Defendant delayed payment of KRW 64,830,000, and the instant complaint stating the intention to terminate the lease agreement on the grounds of arrears of at least three years was served on the Defendant on June 7, 2019.

Around June 10, 2019, the Defendant paid 6,900,000 won to the Plaintiff additionally.

2. According to the allegations and the facts of the above recognition, since the above-mentioned lease contract was lawfully terminated, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs, and pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 57,930,000 won (=64,830,000 won - 6,900,000 won) and 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from May 6, 2019 to June 7, 2019 when the copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the plaintiffs after the above payment deadline, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

(A) The defendant asserts that the damages for delay of 15% per annum are not accepted. Accordingly, the defendant, by leasing illegal buildings, the plaintiffs failed to use or benefit from the object properly, thereby paying the charges for compelling compliance, and that there was a dispute between the plaintiffs, thereby hindering the use or benefit of the object.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone violates the plaintiffs' obligations under the instant lease agreement.