1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

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

According to Gap's statements as to the cause of claim Gap 1, 2, 3, and Eul 1, on June 24, 2013, D class D (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") sold to the defendant on June 24, 2013 the real estate listed in the list of real estate owned by the clan (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") on the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the real estate owned by the defendant on the 197.40 square meters of the attached Form No. 1, 18 square meters of the leased deposit, 5 million won of the lease deposit, 330,000 won of the monthly rent, and 330,000 won of the lease term from July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2015, and the fact that the building of this case was transferred to the plaintiffs on April 9, 2015.

According to the above facts, the plaintiffs succeeded to the lessor's status as to the store of this case by purchasing the building of this case, and the lease contract for the store of this case was terminated by the lapse of the lease term as of July 1, 2015, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff due to its reinstatement.

As to the defendant's defense, the defendant requested renewal of the lease agreement of this case, and the plaintiffs and clans cannot reject it pursuant to the main sentence of Article 10 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Thus, if the defendant requested renewal of the above lease agreement pursuant to the main sentence of Article 10 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, the defendant requested renewal of the above lease agreement to the clan on June 23, 2015, seven days before the expiration of the lease term.

Therefore, the above defense is without merit.

Next, the defendant is the case.