1. The defendant shall indicate 3, 4, 6, and 4 of the annexed drawings among the buildings listed in the annexed list to the plaintiff (appointed party), the appointed party C, and D.

1. On March 1, 2010, the Defendant: F, the former owner of the building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as the "building of this case") and on March 1, 2010, attached Table 3, 4, 6, 5, and 3, connected each point of (i) part of the above building (hereinafter referred to as the "lease Section") 58.77m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease Section") with a deposit of KRW 110 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and up to 24 months until March 1, 2012; the Defendant, on March 1, 2012, concluded a lease contract with the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 12,00,000 for the leased part of this case as KRW 10,000,000,000 for KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as the "Lease 163m2).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Guarantee of opportunity to recover shop premium: The defendant's assertion that rejected "opportune to recover shop premium by lessee" should not be subject to the judgment of this court.

A lessee, aside from claiming damages on the ground that he/she suffered damages on the ground that he/she was unable to properly guarantee the above opportunity, he/she did not take any measures even after the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on May 20, 2016, in the instant case seeking the name of the building, even though the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that he/she would be entitled to claim damages equivalent to the premium, in the content certification as of February 18, 2016, which was sent by the Plaintiff, but rather cannot be a legitimate defense to refuse or delay the name of the building.