2. The cost of the lawsuit is supported by the participation.

A. On May 30, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Intervenor joining the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and the lease period from June 15, 2013 to June 14, 2018, and operates a restaurant upon delivery of the said real estate.

B. According to the instant lease agreement, the term of lease is terminated at the time when the lessee loses ownership of the leased real estate (sale, etc.) as stipulated in the special agreement.

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

On June 7, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant joining the Defendant to purchase the instant real estate at KRW 2.1 billion (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 29, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was terminated by the Defendant’s losing ownership of the instant real estate in accordance with the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the owner, as a exclusion of interference based on ownership.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant lease agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 652 of the Civil Act and Article 15 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”), and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

However, Articles 652, 627, 628, 631, 635, 638, 638, and 640 of the Civil Act stipulate the termination of the lease agreement according to the sale of the leased object.