The defendant shall in order to the plaintiff each point of Attached Form 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 on the ground of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Basic Facts

The market E market of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “market of this case”) is a traditional market that has been naturally created on the land adjacent to the above road, centering on the 6,855.5 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the road of this case”) of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, which was owned from around 1975.

On May 7, 2004, the merchants operating in the market of this case established the E Market Shopping Promotion Cooperative (hereinafter referred to as the "Market Cooperative of this case") for the purpose of modernization and maintenance of facilities of the E market and revitalization of business districts in accordance with the Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets and Shopping Districts (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Act on the Development of Traditional Markets").

As part of the commercial infrastructure modernization project under the Traditional Markets Promotion Act around March 2005, the market cooperative of this case was completed on September 30, 2005 by installing a general steel-frame structure case on the ground of the road of this case used as a main passage of the market with financial support from the State and Mapo-gu office (hereinafter “the case of this case”).

Order 1-A of the store of this case

The store in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "store in this case") is located on the ground other than the road in this case, which is used as the main passage of the market, as shown in the annexed Form 2.

On September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract between the Defendant and the Defendant for a period from August 30, 2012 to 12 months from the lease term, the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, the rent amount of KRW 1,500,000, and the rent payment date of KRW 30,00.

Since that time, the defendant is running in the store of this case.

On February 18, 2013, the instant market cooperative held a general meeting on February 18, 2013 and made a resolution to recommend F to withdraw from the cooperative on the ground that F, the mother of the Plaintiff’s mother, was disqualified due to his/her failure to operate his/her business in the instant market.

From March 2013, the instant market cooperative asserts that the store of this case is owned by the instant market cooperative and that the F or the Plaintiff has the right to the store of this case.