1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 87,960,250 and KRW 63,133,200 among them.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the following parts: the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the same Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The question of who is the party to the conclusive contract of the tenant of the instant store is the interpretation of the parties involved in the contract.

The interpretation of a declaration of intent is to clearly confirm the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating the intent, and in cases where the contents of a contract are written between the parties to the contract in writing, the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indicating the intent should be reasonably interpreted according to the contents written, regardless of the parties’ internal intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da5122, Jun. 30, 1995; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 2000; 200Da27923, Oct. 6, 200), barring any special circumstance, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intention shall be recognized as

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da72572 Decided May 24, 2002, and Supreme Court Decision 2012Da44471 Decided November 29, 2012, etc.). The nominal owner who prepared the fourth lease contract with the Plaintiff regarding the store of this case is Defendant B, not Defendant B, but Defendant C, but Defendant C, and the fact-finding with the head of Gangnam-gu in each of the above facts, evidence and evidence Nos. 4 and evidence Nos. 5. As a result, the fact-finding with the head of Gangnam-gu. The court’s first lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant B, which may be known by the party’s personal examination result and witness G’s testimony, the process and process of the change of the name of the business operator and lessee of the store of this case, and the relation and age of the Defendants, etc. are as follows.