1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph (1);

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Since August 8, 2003, the Plaintiffs shared 1/2 shares each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) as stated in the separate sheet as of August 8, 2003.

B. Around May 2012, the Defendant became aware of the Plaintiffs through the introduction of E, a former lessee of the instant building, and thereafter, from June 2012 to June 2012, the Defendant occupied an underground floor of 173.03 square meters (hereinafter “instant dispute building”) among the instant buildings, and carried out the waterproof construction of the said building, the wind voting installation construction, and the interior construction.

On June 2014 and July 2014, the Defendant received KRW 5,500,00 from the Plaintiffs for construction costs for rooftop waterproof construction works of the instant building.

C. On July 11, 2014, the Plaintiffs asked the Defendant to decide on how to process the instant dispute building, and the Defendant, on the same day, set up and issued to the Plaintiffs a letter stating that “I will open and start business during September 2014. I agree to voluntarily process the place of business at the time of going through the promise (hereinafter “each letter of this case”).

The defendant did not commence business until September 2014.

In addition, there is no fact that the lease contract on the building of this case was made between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

【Ground of recognition】 In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 4-1, 2, Eul evidence 5, 6, and 7, Eul evidence 10-1 through 16, Eul evidence 11-1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, ① since a lease contract was not made between the plaintiffs and the defendant, the above parties did not enter into a lease contract (in short of the above recognition only with the statement of No. 1, it is insufficient to reverse the above recognition). ② In the instant dispute building, the defendant owned, the plaintiffs performed interior construction in the instant dispute building, and received construction cost from the plaintiffs for waterproof construction on the rooftop of the instant building.