1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 5, 2015, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Leases”) leased, to Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the second floor [the first floor, 578.58 square meters (retailing stores, parking lots), 157.05 square meters (office rooms) of the second floor (hereinafter “instant land”) above 724.6 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the details of which were written in detail on the second floor above 578.58 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) were as shown in the attached Form; hereinafter “instant building”) 20 million won as security deposit, monthly rent of KRW 13 million, and the period from January 6, 2015 for a fixed period of ten years from January 6, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Around January 23, 2018, Defendant Company entered into a franchise agreement with Defendant C and H, as well as granted Defendant C a loan for use for a period of three years from January 14, 2018, with a deposit for sub-lease of KRW 230 million and the period of January 14, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant loan agreement”). Defendant C currently operates the “H Hamk datum” in the instant building.

C. On June 14, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the lessor, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 1 of the same year and succeeded to the status of the lessor.

On November 21, 2018, the Plaintiff was permitted to construct business facilities (officetel, total floor area of 5,973m2) on the instant land by Goyang City Mayor.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Gap evidence 5-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that seeks to deliver the instant building based on Article 624 of the Civil Act (a lessee cannot refuse to do so if the lessee performs an act necessary for preserving the leased object) is not acceptable, since reconstruction is premised on the removal of the existing building, it cannot be accepted, and it is merely an exclusive assertion by the Plaintiff, and it is not stated in the main sentence of this Article.

In the event the Defendant Company subleases the instant building without prior notification to the lessor at the time of the instant lease agreement, the lessor.