1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Basic Facts

Attached Form

From July 31, 2008, the building indicated in the list (hereinafter “instant building”) was owned by the Defendant 1/2 shares, E/F shares, and 1/4 shares, respectively. However, on December 31, 2008, the Defendant, E, and F (hereinafter “Defendant, etc.”) agreed to G on each point of (A) section of 82.64 square meters (hereinafter “the remaining part of the instant building; hereinafter “the instant store”) among the above buildings and leased lease deposit amounting to KRW 40,00,000, KRW 80,000,000 until September 15, 2010, and KRW 800,000,000, respectively.

On or after September 15, 2010, G entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on August 25, 201 to transfer lease deposit amounting to KRW 80,000,000 in total, including lease deposit (including lease deposit), 40,000,000, and 40,000,000 in other facility expenses.

(However, the contract was drafted on September 20, 2012). The Plaintiff transferred KRW 80,000,000 to H, who is the mother of G on the same day, and thereafter, operated the restaurant business in the instant store from around that time, and the monthly rent was paid by means of remitting it to Defendant and E via G’s passbook.

On July 3, 2014, the Defendant purchased shares of E and F and completed a share transfer registration, and notified G of the refusal to renew the lease contract. On November 5, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against G seeking the delivery, rent, and unjust enrichment of the instant store.

(Seoul District Court 2014Kadan43240). The above court rejected G’s claim that the Plaintiff transferred the right of lease with the consent of the Defendant on May 15, 2015, and that the Plaintiff delivered the instant store, and “G” transferred the instant store to the Defendant, and from March 1, 2015 to March 880, from March 1, 2015, the delivery of the said store was completed.