1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning for this case is as follows, and the reasoning for this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the following determination is added with respect to the Plaintiff’s argument at the trial of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

All "S" shall be changed to "P".

Paragraph 1(c).

B. The following shall be met:

On May 15, 2008, Defendant B sold three buildings, including the above factory site and the building in this case on the ground to Defendant H Co., Ltd. for KRW 10.3881 billion. Defendant B decided to terminate the lease contract and deliver the building until November 20, 2008, when the tenant moves into the subject matter of sale and purchase, the lease contract shall be terminated and the building shall be handed over. The performance of the contract is to return the down payment of KRW 1.036 million if the tenant fails to do so.

F. The 1 to 2 cases of raising an objection against the foregoing U enforcement are referred to as “case of raising an objection against the foregoing T enforcement”.

Paragraph 1

g. The Defendant V’s “Defendant V” is raised to “Defendant H”.

Paragraph 3

B. (4) The 10th judgment of the lower court was dismissed, and the P and W appeal against the lower judgment was dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff stated in the preparatory document dated October 19, 2015, Defendant Law Firm D, the legal representative of Defendant B, C, E, F, G, andO, in the first instance trial of this case, that “I have any fact of forging the document (a written agreement for extension of the period) in which W would be an employee of the Plaintiff and keep the company’s seal impression and name plates,” and stated that the said preparatory document was made on October 20, 2015, and thus, the said Defendants led to the confession of the Plaintiff’s right to lease on the building of this case.

The plaintiff on the building of this case, with the content of the above preparatory brief.