1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment as to the primary claim is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff alleged that the lease agreement of this case constitutes an anti-social legal act by abusing the top priority repayment right under the Housing Lease Protection Act. However, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the conclusion of the lease agreement of this case by the Defendant and C constitutes an act of abusing the first priority repayment right, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise, and thus, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim cannot be accepted.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and since the plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are without merit, all of them are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.