1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B and C regarding the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the first instance.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the cited part and the amended part is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the Plaintiff’s claims for the part concerning Defendant B and D as follows, and thus, they are cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The main purport of Defendant B’s assertion is as follows: (a) around September 1, 2013 or around April 2, 2014, the expiration date of the instant lease agreement; (b) Defendant B could not engage in entertainment tavern business from around September 2013; (c) around that time, Defendant B issued the correction device of the instant underground floor to the manager; and (d) the necessary documents related to the change of the business name were already secured by the Plaintiff at the time of the instant lease agreement; (c) Defendant B’s confirmation procedure of the instant underground floor was completed; (d) Defendant B’s order of the instant underground floor was issued from September 1, 2013 to April 2, 2014 to April 2, 2014; and (e) Defendant B did not have any other duty to verify the expiration date of the lease agreement; and (e) Defendant B did not have any other duty to verify the expiration date of the instant period of 20 to April 21, 2014.

In full view of the evidence No. 10, Defendant B and Defendant D’s husband and wife (including de facto marriage) in the underground floor of this case.