1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who was working for a member of the DD operated by C Cooperatives.

B. On May 14, 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with C Cooperatives, setting the contract term of six years with the content that the Defendant set up 12 artificial extension devices in C Cooperatives and supplies consumed goods for artificial extension devices.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). The Plaintiff jointly and severally guaranteed the contractual obligations of the C Association.

C. From May 19, 2012 to May 20, 2012, the Defendant installed 12 artificial extension devices and water purification devices to the DNA members operated by the C Union under the instant contract.

On May 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the sixth floor and the rooftop of the building in Daegu-gu E (hereinafter “the building in question”) owned by the Plaintiff that “the Plaintiff would bring about the Defendant’s artificial extension and purification facilities.” On December 13, 2016, the Defendant recovered 12 artificial extension plants, etc. on December 13, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. After the Plaintiff’s assertion, the instant contract was concluded around August 2012 by dispute between C and the Defendant.

Therefore, even though the Defendant has the duty to recover artificial furtherness, etc. from the instant building, it was not recovered. On December 13, 2016, equipment on the sixth floor of the instant building was recovered, but equipment on the rooftop of the instant building has not yet been recovered.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the rent of KRW 6,30,000 for the sixth floor of the instant building from August 24, 2012 to December 13, 2016, and KRW 1,68 million for the rent on the rooftop of the instant building during the period from August 24, 2012 to 56 months.

B. According to the evidence No. 3-2, the Plaintiff may be found to have notified the Defendant of the fact that the Plaintiff would bring about the extension of human dignity, etc. on or around August 2012. However, the above fact of recognition alone is an objection between the Defendant and C.