1. The part requesting restoration, among the lawsuits in this case, shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendants are to the Plaintiff:

(a) Appendix 1. List;

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Grounds for recognition: A confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) (Article 208(3) of the Civil Procedure Act) only submitted an application for postponement of the date of pleading, and the Defendant B did not clearly prove the Plaintiff’s assertion by submitting a reply, a preparatory document, etc.

3. Partial rejection.

A. In civil procedure, the purport of the claim must be specified in detail so that the content and scope can be clearly identified, and whether it is specified is an ex officio investigation. Therefore, in cases where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall order ex officio correction regardless of the defendant's objection, and dismiss the lawsuit if it does not comply with it.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da5069 Decided October 9, 2008, etc.). B.

Based on the above legal principles, the Plaintiff claimed restitution as stipulated in the lease agreement, in addition to seeking the delivery of the leased part of the instant building.

The purport of the Plaintiff’s claim is to remove the facilities installed by Defendant B, etc., the lessee, etc. on the leased part. However, the above circumstance alone cannot be said to have specified the purport of the claim on the grounds that the subject or method of restoration asserted by the Plaintiff is not specific.

Therefore, the part of the claim for restitution is unlawful and dismissed.