1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

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

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. From February 15, 2016 to February 24, 2017, the Plaintiff leased KRW 2,000,000 per month to Defendant B a warehouse in the part (A) (hereinafter referred to as “instant warehouse”) that connects each point of the attached drawings Nos. 7, 10, 11, 6, and 7 among the instant real estate, by setting the lease term from February 15, 2016 to February 24, 2017, the lease deposit amount of KRW 2,00,000 per month to pay KRW 250,000 per month. From November 2017, the Plaintiff increased the rent to KRW 250,00 per month.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

The Defendants paid KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff according to the instant lease agreement as the father’s relationship. The Defendants also used the instant warehouse.

From March 15, 2018 to June 14, 2018, Defendants did not pay to the Plaintiff the tea under the instant lease agreement.

E. On June 18, 2018, the Plaintiff issued to Defendant B a certificate of the content that the Plaintiff requested the termination of the instant lease agreement and the delivery of the instant warehouse by June 30, 2018 on the grounds that the Plaintiff was in arrears with the rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement from March 16, 2018.

F. On November 14, 2018, the Defendants left the keys while moving the instant warehouse, etc., but did not find any key, the Plaintiff opened the instant warehouse on January 10, 2019 with the provisional execution of the judgment of the first instance court without finding any key.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9, 10, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The records of Gap evidence Nos. 3-1 to 7, Gap evidence Nos. 11-1 to 6, and Gap evidence Nos. 4 are merely with respect to Gap's claim for removal and delivery, and the defendants construct and use the part of the warehouse (B) of the real estate of this case which connects each of the items of the annexed drawings Nos. 2-1, 2, 9, 8, and 1 without permission.

(2).