1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) leased the instant real estate from the Defendant Company and occupied the general restaurant while operating the instant real estate; (b) Defendant C at the auction procedure (Cheongju District Court E) where, due to the Defendant Company’s intentional nonperformance of obligation, the mortgagee Co., Ltd. applied for a voluntary auction on the said real estate; and (c) Defendant C was at the auction procedure (Cheongju District Court E) and paid the auction price in full; and (d) received the instant order for delivery.

However, with respect to the real estate of this case and the land annexed thereto, the Plaintiff disbursed the necessary and beneficial expenses equivalent to KRW 119.8 million in total with the approval of the lessor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has the right of retention for the aforementioned necessary and beneficial expenses as the secured claim.

Therefore, the Plaintiff is confirmed to have the right of retention on the instant real estate against the Defendants, and the Defendant Company is paid KRW 100 million, which is part of the necessary and beneficial expenses, and Defendant C has the right to request the Defendants to refuse compulsory execution under the extradition order of this case.

B. Determination is based on the special agreement that the lessee of a building agrees to restore the building to its original state upon termination of the lease relationship and order the lessor to surrender it to the lessor is a special agreement to waive the right to demand reimbursement of all kinds of beneficial or necessary expenses incurred in the building. Thus, the lessee cannot claim the right of retention.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Da2010, Apr. 22, 1975; 95Da12927, Jun. 30, 1995). However, according to each of the records in the instant case, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant Company on May 31, 2013 and February 14, 2015, with each of the following: “When intending to specify the leased object, the Plaintiff shall restore the leased object to its original state at the request of the Plaintiff and return it to its original state, and shall not be granted any rights.”