1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B, Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E are listed in attached Form.

On March 7, 2011, the Plaintiff’s attached building was leased to Defendant E with monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, lease period from March 8, 2011 to March 7, 2013. The Defendants occupied the said building; and the Plaintiff’s notification to Defendant E to the effect that the lease contract is terminated on or around July 4, 2014 due to rent for at least two consecutive periods, may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, and Defendant E paid monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million and KRW 1.5 million on April 25, 2014 as the monthly rent as the Plaintiff.

According to the above facts, since the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant E was terminated by a rent, the defendants are obligated to deliver the above building, which is the object of the lease, to the plaintiff, and the defendant Eul is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 60,000,000,000,000, which can be viewed as the amount equivalent to the unjust enrichment from the occupation use of the building from March to August 2014 and the amount equivalent to the unjust enrichment from September 8, 2014 to the delivery of the building.

The above defendant D's argument is without merit, because there is no evidence to prove that the defendant D's monthly rent is a monthly rent, although it is the monthly rent.

In addition, Defendant C, in addition to the rent payment recognized by the Plaintiff, claimed that Defendant C paid the rent in February and March 2014, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.