1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 5, Eul evidence of No. 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10 (including the Serial Number).

[1] The Plaintiffs, on May 7, 2004, purchased 1/2 shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) from D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant store on February 4, 2008.

On July 31, 2008, the Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the non-party company and the non-party company in exchange for the non-party company’s store No. 130-1 and No. 130-2 (hereinafter “non-party store”) on the non-party company’s non-party company-owned G 1 parcel G G 1st, G.

(hereinafter “instant exchange contract”). Around January 8, 2009, Nonparty Company sold the instant store to E.

However, the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the non-party company or E was not completed with respect to the above store.

[2] On October 8, 2008, the Defendant leased the instant store from the non-party company with a deposit of KRW 4,0850,000,000,000 per month, KRW 1.488,000,000 per month, and the period of KRW 7 years, and as E purchased the said store, the Defendant leased the instant store from E on December 31 of the same year with the same content as above.

By October 7, 2015, the date of termination of the lease contract, the Defendant paid all the rent agreed by the method of directly paying rent to E, a lessor of the instant store, or deducting the refund from the deposit amount. On the same day, the said store was restored to its original state, and delivered it to the Plaintiffs.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs have continuously occupied and used the non-party store by leasing the non-party store to the third party after concluding the exchange contract with the non-party company.

2. The Plaintiffs regarding the claim for the delivery of a store are against the Defendant on the ground that they are the owners of the instant store.