A. On January 24, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Nonparty C and the Plaintiff on a deposit of KRW 200,000,000 for the size of 1,822 square meters for the land owned by the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 12,00,000 for the tea, and KRW 12,00,000 for the tea (after January 27, 201), while running the business as “E” from the above real estate as the trade name, C used 2,32 square meters for the land owned by the neighboring Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On April 23, 2012, the lower court notified the Plaintiff of an order to reinstate the instant real estate to its original state in accordance with Article 30 of the aforementioned Act and Articles 2 and 3(1) of the Administrative Vicarious Execution Act, since the act of constructing a parking lot, resting room, warehouse, dwelling, warehouse, etc. is in violation of Article 12 of the Act on Special Measures for Designation and Management of Development Restriction Zones.

Accordingly, C stated on the back of the above fraternity C that “The lessee C shall pay the full amount of the fine for negligence and the penalty for the use of the real estate of this case and shall have all the legal responsibilities that may be incurred later.”

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

On June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff and C entered into a lease agreement with the following terms: (a) added the instant real estate on June 29, 2012; (b) added deposit of KRW 400,000,000 (in part of the security deposit, substitution of the existing security deposit); (c) the monthly rent of KRW 19,00,000 (not later than the end of each month); and (d) the period from June 29, 2012 to June 28, 2017; and (b) the special terms and conditions stipulate that “the use of the instant real estate outside the D business license area shall be the responsibility of the lessee.”

C established the Defendant on August 7, 2013, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on December 31, 2013, stipulating that “The Defendant shall succeed to all of the instant agreements” in the part indicated in the said order.

E. On November 3, 2014, Hanam Mayor imposed a charge for compelling the performance on the Plaintiff. On March 15, 2016, the 50,000 won for compelling the performance was urged and notified again on March 15, 2016.

The plaintiff.