1. The defendant shall receive KRW 3,000,000 from the Selection C, and at the same time, shall be recorded in the attached list to the Selection C.

1. The real estate listed in the attached list of basic facts (hereinafter “instant building”) is an unregistered building that is a 145.12 square meters of a store and 95.9 square meters of a store among the 1st floor of the building in the relevant building ledger, and is owned by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and H. The 78.55 square meters of a store on the 1st floor, the 78.55 square meters of a 78.55 square meters of a store on the 1st floor is owned by the Appointed Party E, the Lessee’s 14.6 square meters of a 14.6 square meters of a 2nd floor is owned by the Appointed Party F, and the 14.6 square meters of a 3nd floor store is owned by the Appoint Party C, and the 14.6 square meters of

On the other hand, on April 1, 2006, the Selection C leased the instant store (5 square meters) located on the second floor of the instant building owned by himself to the Defendant in KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and KRW 300,000,000.

(B) Under the following, the instant lease agreement stipulated that “The lessee shall comply with the instant lease agreement if the instant building is redevelopment or sale, etc. to a provisional building, etc., and the lessee shall comply with the request for evacuation from the owner of the building.”

After that, on May 28, 2015, the law firm name representing the owners of the instant building notified the Defendant that he/she would refuse to renew the instant lease agreement and terminate the lease agreement on the ground that reconstruction was conducted.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) have sought the delivery of the instant store against the Defendant on the ground that the instant lease agreement was terminated.

However, the store of this case possessed by the Defendant is about the second floor store of the building of this case owned by the Appointee C alone, and the lessor who concluded the lease contract of this case with the Defendant is also only C. Thus, the remaining plaintiffs except the Appointor C cannot seek the delivery of the store of this case against the Defendant.

Therefore, the Appointor C's defendant.