1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Grounds for claim;

A. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff A leased the store specified in paragraph (1) of the purport of the claim (ground 204, below) to the Defendant by setting the deposit amount of KRW 3,165,803, monthly rent KRW 379,896, and the period of August 11, 2014.

B. On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff B leased the store specified in paragraph (2) of the purport of the claim to the Defendant (ground 201, the instant B store below), by setting the deposit amount of KRW 3,039,902, monthly rent, KRW 364,788, and the period of August 11, 2014.

C. On June 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs expressed that they did not wish to renew each of the above lease agreements to the Defendant. Since the lease term expires, the Plaintiffs sought delivery of the instant A and B stores, and seek payment of money equivalent to the rent until the delivery of the said stores.

2. Whether the store of this case is subject to sectional ownership

A. The plaintiffs' claim is based on the premise that each of the stores of this case is the object of sectional ownership, and thus, each of the stores of this case is entitled to sectional ownership. Therefore, we first examine whether each of the stores of this case is subject to sectional ownership.

B. In order for a part of a building to be the object of sectional ownership to be the object of sectional ownership, the said part must be independent from other parts in structure or use; and there may be differences in the strictness of judgment on structural independence in accordance with the situation of use or use of the house, store, garage, etc. of the building; however, the structural independence is required because it is necessary to clarify the scope of physical control over the object which mainly becomes the object of sectional ownership. Therefore, if the scope of the object of sectional ownership cannot be determined by structural division, the structural independence cannot be said to exist.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da41214, Mar. 9, 1993). Meanwhile, Article 1-2 of the Act on Ownership and Management of Condominium Buildings separates commercial buildings into several parts of a building.