All appeals by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) C and Defendant B are dismissed.

In this Court, the plaintiff (Counterclaim plaintiff) brought by the defendant C.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, except for the second part of the facts, that is, “1. Facts recognized” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the annexed list, and thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Contentss] ① Under the second page, “Guarantee 180 million won” (hereinafter “Guarantee 180 million won”)

On February 15, 2019, Defendant C asserted that “the Plaintiff agreed not to extend the previous lease agreement on December 13, 2018,” and applied for a payment order claiming the return of KRW 250 million deposit (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2019j. 290) and issued an order for payment on February 26, 2019. The Plaintiff filed an objection, and the said Defendant filed an application for the conciliation, but was dismissed on May 30, 2019, by failing to correct the stamp within the prescribed period.

[....]

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff was the owner of the instant real estate, but the Plaintiff transferred ownership to E on March 8, 2019, and thus, the Plaintiff is not the party to the instant lawsuit. However, in a performance lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is the party to the instant lawsuit is qualified as the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have to be the party to the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da13927, Sept. 18, 1998). Thus, the Defendants’ aforementioned safety defense does not require any further review and without merit, as seen in Article 1-g of the reasoning of the first instance judgment.