1. The part against Defendant F in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant F is dismissed.

2...

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the basic facts, or the following facts are acknowledged in full view of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings.

A. On April 17, 2012, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant store”).

The detailed shape of the store in this case is as shown in the attached Table 1 List 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, which connects each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, and the attached Table 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5, which connect each point of the attached Table 2 (T-911), are as shown in the attached Table 2, 2.87 square meters.

B. On March 30, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the co-defendant B and C of the first instance trial, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million until March 30, 2013, and the monthly rent of KRW 2 million, and thereafter, the Plaintiff received the lease deposit from the Dong and delivered the instant store to the Dong.

C. Codefendant B, Defendant B, C, D (hereinafter “B”), “C,” and the Defendants, on October 30, 2012, registered their business with respect to the instant store in the name of Gweves, and began to operate the Sweves business at the instant store.

On March 30, 2013, the above lease agreement on the store of this case was implicitly renewed on March 30, 2013, and the Plaintiff was notified on January 2, 2014 that the lease agreement was in arrears between B and C, and the Plaintiff was rejected on January 2, 2014.

2. Determination

A. (1) There is no dispute between the parties that Defendant E occupies the instant store. Unless there is a special circumstance that Defendant E has the right to possess the instant store, Defendant E is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff who exercises the right to claim the removal of disturbance based on ownership as the owner of the instant store.