1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. The assertion and judgment

A. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff’s assertion entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C, the spouse representing Defendant B, about approximately 90 square meters of the Daegu-gun D ground buildings owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and operated a textile plant (hereinafter “instant factory”).

However, around October 15, 2013, Defendant B discontinued the Plaintiff with the operation of the instant factory on the grounds of noise and vibration and left the said factory. On the other hand, Defendant C decided on October 18, 2013 to continue to use the said factory by paying monthly rent to the Plaintiff and continuing to use the said factory.

In addition, on January 4, 2014, the Plaintiff paid monthly rent to Defendant C and started the operation of the machinery at the instant plant around that time, and Defendant B demanded the suspension of the operation of the machinery for noise and vibration three days after the operation of the machinery, and all of the above factories were installed.

In addition, on January 24, 2014, the Defendants installed locks for the instant factory.

The above acts of the Defendants are nonperformance under the above lease agreement or illegal acts against the Plaintiff by the Defendants. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was unable to generate profits by operating four factories. The contract was revoked by the Customer. The Plaintiff, who was a textile technician, was unable to utilize the pre-purchaseed raw materials, and the Plaintiff, as a textile technician, suffered damages of more than 300 million won, and thus, the Defendants should jointly pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages, 35 million won, and damages for delay.

B. First, in full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and the entire argument, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with defendant C on the real estate of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant C entered into the above lease agreement on behalf of the defendant Eul, and otherwise, the defendant B entered into the above lease agreement.