All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the case where the Defendants added or emphasized the assertion that was added or emphasized by this court under paragraph (2) of this Article, and thus, it is also accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part concerning the intervenor of the independent party of the court of first instance, which became final and conclusive.)

A. 1) The Defendants’ assertion that the lease agreement is null and void since the Plaintiff did not have any evidence to prove that the Plaintiff acquired the instant building, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lease agreement is null and void due to the lack of authority to lease ① and ② stores within the instant building.

Therefore, the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request.

2) The judgment of the court below is established when one of the parties agreed to allow the other party to use and benefit from an object and the other party agreed to pay rent for it. Even if the lessor has no ownership or other right to rent the object, the lease agreement is effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da15087, Mar. 8, 1996; 2008Da38325, Sept. 24, 2009). Even if the Plaintiff is not the owner of the building of this case, in light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff is not the owner of the building of this case, such circumstance alone alone is insufficient to deem that the above lease is null and void.

The Defendants’ above assertion cannot be accepted on the premise different from this premise.

B. 1) The Defendants’ assertion that the lease agreement was revoked on the ground that the instant building was erroneous and erroneously owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendants leased their stores ① and ②. However, the Plaintiff was not the owner of the instant building, and thus, the said lease agreement was revoked on the ground of mistake.

Therefore, the Defendants cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request.

(ii)..