1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant B and C shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Daegu-gu Saemaul Savings Depository.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) entered into a lease agreement with F on July 20, 2012, under which the first floor store located G in Gyeonggi-si (hereinafter “instant store”); (b) from July 20, 2012 to July 24, 2012, the deposit amount of KRW 50 million (the contract deposit of KRW 50 million is paid in a lump sum at the time of the contract), and (c) obtained a fixed date from the head of the Busan District Tax Office on August 3, 2012, and filed for registration of business.

B. On September 12, 2012, Defendant Daegu District Court: (a) leased KRW 470,000,000 to F with interest rate of KRW 6.5.5% per annum; (b) concluded a mortgage agreement with F on the building of KRW 565,400 square meters and the five-story above ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”); and (c) concluded a mortgage agreement with F as to the building of KRW 611,00,000 with respect to the maximum debt amount; and (d) completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring district court (Seoul District Court No. 39915, Sept. 12, 2012).

C. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against F with the Daegu District Court seeking the return of KRW 50,000,000 (so-called 2012dan54826). The grounds for the claim are as follows. The duplicate of the complaint was served on F on October 25, 2012, and on January 23, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a mediation that “F shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff by March 15, 2013.”

When concluding a lease contract for the instant store between the Plaintiff and F, F promised that the Plaintiff will provide various kinds of facilities, such as electric facilities, septic tanks, etc., which the Plaintiff is able to operate, but it is not possible to operate the business due to the occupant's failure to inform the Plaintiff of such facilities at all.

Therefore, although the above facilities have been urged to be installed several times, it may be said that the facilities can not be damaged because the next day is delayed only once the next day.

Therefore, the plaintiff terminated the lease contract due to the reasons attributable to F and served as a copy of the complaint, and notified F of the termination of the lease contract.