1. All principal and counterclaim claims are dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part incurred by the principal lawsuit is Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On March 2, 2018, the Defendant entered into a contract with the owner D to lease one story from the owner of the building for the second-class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) located in Daegu-gu Seoul-gu, Daegu-gu, 187 square meters of land on March 2, 2018 to March 7, 2020, and is a person operating a restaurant.

(2) Before the Defendant’s operation of the restaurant in the instant building, E entered into a lease contract at the same place as the private village and operated the restaurant.

The defendant reported to the competent authorities that he succeeded to the status of E by transfer of business (Article 39(3) of the Food Sanitation Act), and maintained the trade name (F).

B. The Plaintiff is also a person who has succeeded to the status of the first floor lessor (Article 3(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act) by acquiring ownership on March 31, 2020 by purchasing the instant building and its site from D.

(c)

Illegal extension E of the 1st floor of the instant building has been used for the extended restaurant business without permission for the part 1 (hereinafter “the instant extension”) connected in order to each point of the attached drawings No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 while leasing the 1st floor of the instant building.

The defendant also continues to use his portion after being transferred.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5, witness E and D's testimony, and fact-finding with the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City/Dong-gu Office, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant occupies the part of the extension of this case without permission, and thus, the owner is obligated to deliver it to the plaintiff.

B. (1) According to the reasoning of Gap evidence No. 1, witness Eul's testimony and the whole arguments, D is without permission to use and benefit from Eul's non-performance of the part of the extension of this case without permission. ② The defendant who acquired a restaurant business from E and newly entered into a lease agreement with the defendant who acquired the restaurant business.