Defendant B Co., Ltd.:

(a) Out of the real estate listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list, ship 1, b.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 22, 2017, the Plaintiff, among the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1, leased to Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”), the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 458.15 square meters and real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “the leased object of this case” collectively referred to as “the leased object of this case”), which was connected in sequences each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 1, and 458.15 square meters and the real estate listed in the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”), which was leased from July 20, 2017 to July 19, 2019.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Defendant B continuously occupied and used the leased object of this case even after the expiration of the term of the instant lease agreement, but did not pay for a total of KRW 23,100,000 from January 2019 to December 20, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 6 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. Claim indication: Claim for delivery of the leased object of this case following the termination of the lease contract of this case due to Defendant B’s delinquency in rent, and claim for payment of unpaid rents or unjust enrichment

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

3. The Plaintiff filed each claim against Defendant C, D, and E, asserting that Defendant C, D, and E are equipped with machinery owned by Defendant C, D, and E in the leased object of this case, and that the said Defendants jointly possessed the leased object of this case with Defendant B, and demanding the said Defendants to deliver the leased object of this case and to return the unpaid unjust enrichment upon the termination of the lease contract of this case.

However, it is evident that the above Defendants are not the parties to the instant lease agreement, and the delivery of the leased object to the above Defendants, who are not the lessee, on the grounds of the termination of the instant lease agreement.