1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and Defendant C by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 7,000,000, and from May 1, 2013 to April 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the F shop owned by Defendant C and Defendant B (hereinafter “instant store”). The said agreement includes a special agreement that “Lessee is liable for the second floor of the second floor.”

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid a lease deposit, received delivery from the Defendants of each of the instant stores, and operated a restaurant after performing internal interior interior interior interior interior interior construction.

C. The instant lease agreement terminated on April 31, 2018, and the Plaintiff returned each of the instant stores to the Defendants.

From April 7, 2014 to May 25, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,007,550 on behalf of the Defendant C, and KRW 24,768,00,00, respectively, for the enforcement fine imposed by the Gangnam-gu Office due to the multilateral bank installed without permission at each of the instant stores.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 evidence (including each number, if any), Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. After the lapse of one year from the commencement of restaurant business at each of the instant stores, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was registered as an illegal building due to various events established in each of the instant stores. The Gangnam-gu Office, the competent authority, informed the Defendants of the imposition of a charge for compelling construction performance on each of the instant stores. The Plaintiff paid a charge for compelling construction performance on behalf of the Defendants because the Plaintiff’s permission for restaurant in the name of the Plaintiff could have been revoked.