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

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants divorced on November 19, 2009.

B. On April 25, 2012, Defendant C opened a restaurant with the trade name “D” in the instant building, and the same year.

4. 30. The lease of the building owned by the Plaintiff was made by the Plaintiff, and the relevant terms of the contract are as follows:

Deposit: 35,000,000 won per month: Article 2 shall be paid from May 1, 2012 to the last day of each month. [Duration] The plaintiff shall deliver the above building to the above defendant by April 30, 2012, and the lease period shall be from the delivery date to April 30, 2014.

Article 3 [Change of Use, Sub-lease, etc.] The above defendant shall not change the use or structure of the above building without the consent of the plaintiff, nor sub-lease, transfer the right of lease or offer the security, nor use it for any purpose other

C. At the end of March 2014, the Plaintiff renewed the said lease agreement with Defendant C as one year from May 1, 2014 with its term of validity.

At the time of the conclusion of the argument in this case, Defendant B, as the principal kitchen of the above restaurant with the consent of Defendant C, occupied the part on the first floor of this case and the part on the second floor of the above building as the co-manager of Defendant C.

E. On May 15, 2015, the rent for the instant building was in arrears with KRW 4,000,000 prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Defendant C paid KRW 3,000,000, respectively, to the Plaintiff on the last day of May to October of the same year and around November of the same year.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 3, Eul 2 to 4-8, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) As to the request for extradition, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants agreed with the Defendants to deliver the instant building without mold at the end of April 2015, around March 2014. However, since the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s allegation, the above assertion by the Plaintiff is without merit. (2) In light of the fact that the request for extradition based on the ownership of Defendant B was accepted.