2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of 101, 201, 301, and 401 among the sectional stores listed in the attached Table 1 list on the land of 230 square meters in Gwangju Mine-gu, and E large 137 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”); and the Defendant is the Defendant who leased and operated the said pharmacy from the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) who operated the said pharmacy under the trade name of “F Pharmacy” (hereinafter “instant pharmacy”) in the said building 102.

B. 1) The Intervenor prior to the construction of the instant building is a building with a size of 137 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “previous building”).

As the owner of the previous building, H was operating a pharmacy with the name of “F pharmacy” on the first floor of the previous building, and H was as the intervenor’s son, and was operating one Council member on the second floor of the previous building. The Plaintiff constructed one building (four floors on each ground) on each of the following land, the Intervenor, H, and each of the above land, adjacent to the said land, and newly constructed one building (four floors on each of the above land), and the entire building was built as a single building (the instant building) and divided ownership of the stores located in each of the new buildings. 2) After the Plaintiff constructed the previous building on one’s own land (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and then the Plaintiff removed the previous building on one’s land, and the Plaintiff constructed the building adjacent to the Plaintiff’s building (hereinafter “H building”) on the part of the Intervenor’s land, and around August 28, 2003, the Plaintiff completed the preservation of ownership as to the Plaintiff’s 101, 201, 301, 421, H201, and 301.

C. A dispute arises in relation to the rent of the first floor of the Plaintiff’s building that the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, and the H agreed to rent and use H, and the signboard installed on the outer wall of the instant building. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor and the H in around 2005 against the Seoul District Court No. 2005Ga79405.