1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons why this court should state this part of the facts are as follows: (a) if the Defendants, B, and H are excluded from adding “Defendant C” and “(hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Defendants, the Defendants, and the H, etc.”) following the 6th judgment, it is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance; (b) thereby citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasons why the court stated this part of the arguments of the parties are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

3. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The agreement on the non-instigation of the relevant legal doctrine is valid as it generates the effect of a serious litigation law, such as waiver of the right to claim a trial guaranteed under the Constitution against the parties to the lawsuit, and is relevant to the situation that can be anticipated at the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da63988, Mar. 26, 1999). In a case where there are different opinions on the validity or scope thereof, determination should be made after reasonably interpreting the intent of the parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2011Da80449 Decided November 28, 2013). B.

Judgment

1) Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4 (including paper numbers) and part of witness I of the court of first instance added the purport of the entire pleadings to the testimony of the defendants, G, H, I (hereinafter excluding the defendants, G, H, I (hereinafter excluding the defendants), "three persons, including G, etc."

() On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff jointly leased the first, second, and third floors underground among the instant buildings from D, and opened the main store in the household industry. For convenience, Defendant B and G were divided into the first floor in the underground, Defendant C and H into the second floor in the underground, and Defendant C and I prepared a lease agreement among the lessees of the third floor in the underground (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant lease agreement”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On January 4, 2013, the Plaintiff had three persons, including G, as follows.