1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) At around 1975, the Plaintiff: (a) leased and used the following: (a) the part 1.8 square meters in Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul and J ground buildings D, located on the southwest of the I market, the Defendant’s friendly H, in order to connect each point of the attached drawing Nos. 23, 17, 3, 26, 22, 25, 24, and 23 among the 1st floor of the building in Jongno-gu Seoul and J ground buildings; (b) 31, 30, 29, 20, 27, 21, 28, 22, 42, and 31 square meters in size; and (c) the Plaintiff engaged in synthetic leather and retail business by leasing and using the same map Nos. 31, 29, 29, 29, 27, 27, 28, 222, and 31.

(2) On October 22, 2007, when the net H died, the same year is applicable to the building above.

8. 21. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer by agreement division with 5/100, 38/100 of Nonparty L, 4/100 of Nonparty M, and 3/100 of Nonparty N.

(3) On December 15, 2008, the Plaintiff and co-owners, including the Defendant, leased and continued to use the instant store as KRW 8 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,050,00 (value-added tax separate, subsequent payment), management expenses of KRW 25,00, and lease period of 12 months, and the said lease contract was implicitly renewed thereafter.

(4) On April 19, 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the said lease contract and at that time the said lease contract was terminated on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not pay the rent for six months after October 2010.

B. On January 25, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff regarding the instant store in question, and sentenced the appellate court (Seoul Central District Court 2012Na22364) to the effect that “the Plaintiff simultaneously delivers the instant store with the Defendant a refund of deposit for lease, and at the same time pays a rent equivalent to the rent by the day the delivery of the instant store was completed,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on February 20, 2013.

(hereinafter “Prior Case”). The Defendant is subject to compulsory execution of the said judgment on March 18, 2013 by the Plaintiff.