1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant A, (1) among the 5,129 square meters, the attached Form 1.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant A and B

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment of deemed confessions due to the absence of the defendant);

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 13 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 2012 to the end of April 19, 2012 by setting forth the lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) as the contract amount of KRW 87,300,7300, contract deposit, KRW 8,730,000, KRW 17,460,00, KRW 17,460, and KRW 17,460,00, and KRW 208,000 with respect to the leased facilities connected each point of the 2,00 square meters in Busan, Busan, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff; (b) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant from April 20, 2012 to April 19, 2017; and (c) concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff from the Defendant 2013.

According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated on June 9, 2015.

As such, Defendant C is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant C’s argument regarding Defendant C’s assertion argues that it is impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since it was lawfully leased the instant store from Defendant C. However, according to the Plaintiff’s statement No. 8, Defendant B, the lessee of the instant store, could not sublease without the Plaintiff’s approval. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B obtained the Plaintiff’s approval at the time of sublet the instant store to Defendant C. Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion is reasonable.