1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. A list of the judgment of the court of first instance is annexed.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is as follows, and this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "A building located on each of the above lands" shall be constructed with "A building indicated in the attached Form "Real Estate List" located on each of the above lands."

Part 1-B of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

subsection (1) shall be filled by the following:

around June 1, 1993, the Defendant and other co-owners of each real estate of this case entered into a lease agreement on the first floor of the building of this case (hereinafter “the first floor lease agreement of this case”) with F Co., Ltd., which the Plaintiff operated as the representative director, with fixing the lease deposit as KRW 100 million. On December 25, 1999, G who operated the Plaintiff and the restaurant business of this case succeeded to the lessee’s status, but on July 1, 2009, H (hereinafter “H”) who operated the Plaintiff as the representative director (hereinafter “the Plaintiff”) succeeded to the lessee’s status. However, the lease agreement was still renewed until now and the lease deposit also remains as KRW 100 million.

2) In addition, the Defendant and the other co-owners of each of the instant real estate set the lease deposit amount of KRW 135 million between the Defendant and the E around March 4, 1995 and the lease contract on the second and third floors of the instant building (hereinafter “instant second lease contract”). In addition, the instant lease contract, including the instant first lease contract, shall be deemed to be the “instant lease contract”.

(3) The lease contract of this case was renewed until now and the deposit is also maintained as KRW 235 million (=100 million) of the lease deposit of this case (i.e., KRW 135 million of the lease deposit of this case’s first lease contract of this case’s KRW 100 million), depending on the Defendant’s co-ownership of each real estate of this case.