Defendant 1, among the buildings listed in the attached list, ordered the Plaintiff to engage in 14-2 Hobbes, 2-1, 2-2, 3-2, 3-4, 17-9, 3-4, 3-7, 5-6, 5-7, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2

2. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and provisional execution declaration

(Purpose of Appeal by the Defendant) The part against the Defendants in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim corresponding to this part shall be dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

In full view of the statements in the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2-1, No. 2-1, and No. 2-1, and No. 3 (a certificate of lease contract) without dispute over the establishment of the public interest portion of No. 1-1, No. 1-2, and No. 3-2 (a certificate of lease contract), and the whole purport of the party’s pleading at the testimony of Non-Party 1, the plaintiff shall not reverse the above facts of the lease contract to Defendant 1 on May 1, 1979, on the ground that the plaintiff did not raise rent from May 1, 1978 to KRW 4,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 320,000, and on the ground that the above facts of the lease contract was not increased to KRW 600,000,000 and KRW 16,000,000 for each of the above facts.

According to the above facts, the above lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 was lawfully terminated. Thus, unless there are other special circumstances, the defendant 1 is obligated to order the plaintiff to clarify the part as stated in Paragraph 1 of the Disposition, which is the remainder of 17th 9th 9th 3th excluding the plaintiff's name among the buildings listed in the attached list.

However, Defendant 1 has the right to claim the return of KRW 8,00,000 and the expenses incurred in replacing the inside of the building as food department stores with the Plaintiff’s consent. All of these claims are claims arising from the above building. Thus, Defendant 1 asserts that the Plaintiff shall exercise the right of retention on the above building until he pays the above amount. Although the above amount is not paid, Defendant 1 asserts that he has the duty to order the above building only with payment of the above amount. Thus, the above lease deposit was KRW 7,00,000,000, as seen above, and there is no evidence that the above lease deposit was KRW 8,000,000,000 and the above lease deposit was KRW 7,000,000,000 and the above lease deposit was KRW 7,000,000,000,0000, and there is no evidence that the lease deposit was paid at the same time for the purpose of returning food department stores inside the above building, and there is no other duty to claim 100,0000,000.

However, the plaintiff asserted that the above claim was set off against the defendant 1, 7,050,519 won as shown in the bond list, and therefore, the above claim was made against the plaintiff 1, 7,000 won or more. Thus, the defendant 1 did not pay rent for 3 months until August 1, 1981 when the above lease contract was terminated, and the rent for 6,00,000 won is 6,00 won or more as mentioned above, the rent for 20,000 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 20,00 won or more for 20,00 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 20,000 won or more for 15,014,0,000

Defendant 1’s payment of KRW 263,08, KRW 220,81 on the aggregate of the electricity charges for the period from June to September, 1981, and KRW 263,00 on the aggregate of the above water charges for March, May, July, and September of the same year, and KRW 220,81 on the Plaintiff’s lease to Defendant 1, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 99,00 and KRW 14,00 on the first quarter of the year of 1981 as the Plaintiff leased the above building to Defendant 1, and paid KRW 45,00, KRW 14,000 on the first quarter of the year of 1981 (the above value-added tax shall be the amount to be borne by Defendant 1 who is to be supplied with the above value-added tax) and the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 300,000 on May 16, 1981 to Defendant 1, it is difficult to deem that the above portion of the deposit was against Nonparty 2’s testimony.

2. Determination on the claim against the defendant 2 and 3

As seen earlier, Defendant 2 is the owner of the above building, and Defendant 2 is one of the Defendants, who own possession of 4th 17th 9th 17th nbbes, and 5th 6th 6th 6th nbs, among the above buildings (However, Defendant 2 ordered the Plaintiff to execute this execution based on the original judgment in favor of the Plaintiff in a provisional execution sentence). The above Defendants have the duty to inform the Plaintiff of their possession portion, unless there is any proof as to the legitimate title to possess each part of the above building. The above Defendants are bound by Defendant 1 who obtained the consent to sublease from the Plaintiff, and cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request, but in this case, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s right to lease was extinguished as the Plaintiff’s right to lease on the ground of delayed payment of the rent of the above Defendant, and even if so, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 did not receive the above consent from the Plaintiff, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3’s assertion that the above lease agreement was terminated.

At the time, Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 paid KRW 2,00,00 to Defendant 1 as the deposit for the deposit, and KRW 800,000 to Defendant 3 as the deposit for the deposit for the lease of each possession from Defendant 1, while Defendant 1 consented to the lease of the building for the lease of the lease, the Plaintiff was responsible for the return of the deposit for the lease of the lease from Defendant 1 to Defendant 1 within the limit of KRW 8,00,000,00 that he received from the former lessee. Thus, Defendant 1 cannot accept the Plaintiff’s request for the return of the deposit for the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the former from Defendant 1.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant 1 is obligated to order the remaining parts of the above building except for the fifth floor, and both Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 are obligated to order their respective possession parts. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted. Since the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment between the plaintiff and Defendant 1 is unfair in accordance with this conclusion, the part against the plaintiff among the original judgment between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to order the defendant to specify the remaining parts of the above building except for the fifth floor, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. The original judgment between the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 3 is just and without merit, and it is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendants who lost all the first and second instances.

Judges Bocheon-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)