1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party D are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Basic facts

A. On April 7, 2014, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointor D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiffs”) jointly leased part of 125.4 square meters of the third floor of the building in Gangdong-gu Seoul, Gangdong-gu, Seoul to the Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 2 million (including management expenses), and the lease period from April 21, 2014. Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the contractual obligations under the above lease agreement of the Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. On September 8, 2015, Defendant Company delivered the above leased building to the Plaintiffs.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 and 2

2. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendants jointly and severally, in accordance with the aforementioned lease agreement, are liable to pay the total amount of KRW 615,393, including the monthly and public charges that the Defendant Company left from September 1, 2015 to September 8, 2015, as well as damages for delay.

On August 31, 2015, the Defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' claims are unfair since they agreed on the delivery of buildings with the plaintiffs.

3. We examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

In case where there exists an agreement to bring an action, the parties may not bring an action against it.

According to the records, it is recognized that the Plaintiff (Appointed) as the representative of the lessor of the building building, agreed on August 31, 2015 on the delivery of the building and the return of deposit money with the Defendant Company, and agreed not to institute a civil or criminal lawsuit in the future.

Since the above sub-committee agreement was concluded by the plaintiff (appointed party) as the representative of the lessor of the building in E, it shall be deemed that the agreement has effect on the appointed party D, and the defendant C, as a joint and several surety of the defendant company, may use the above sub-committee agreement of the defendant company as the principal obligor, and may oppose the plaintiffs, the creditor.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is related to the above lease agreement, and is subject to the above sub-committee agreement.