beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
The defendants jointly do so to the plaintiffs, as set forth in attached Table 1.1.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiffs in Defendant D’s building lease and pharmacy operation Plaintiffs owned by Defendant D owned owned land and buildings as indicated below between husband and wife.
(2) On July 29, 2002, Defendant D, a pharmacist of Jyang-gu, Hayang-gu, 199 square meters on the land indicated in the table below, moved from Plaintiff A to Plaintiff B the first floor of the building indicated in the table No. 2 list No. 330 square meters on the ground of the building No. 2 list No. 328 square meters on the ground of the building No. 328 square meters on the ground of the building No. 2 list No. 2 list No. 3 of the building No. 3328 square meters on the land No. 2 list No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 3 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 2007. 2 of the building No.
The construction of the road of the commercial building of this case has a question of the K Hospital, which is a large general hospital in the mountain area. Before the dispute of this case occurred, vehicles can immediately enter the commercial building of this case from the fixed room of K Hospital to the commercial building of this case, the pharmacy of this case had been enjoying considerable business benefits as the general hospital called the so-called general hospital.
B. In the event of a dispute over the lease of the instant commercial building and the transfer of the pharmacy, the Plaintiff A agreed to lease the instant commercial building to a third party who intends to operate the said pharmacy, and Defendant D requested to transfer the instant commercial building from February 26, 2013 to Defendant D, but Defendant D did not comply with the notification of the refusal to renew the lease on several occasions, and Defendant D filed a lawsuit against Defendant D on July 9, 2013, and the case was affirmed on June 5, 2015 following the two-year trial process.