1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the decision of this court emphasizing or adding the Plaintiff’s assertion is identical to the part concerning the Plaintiff among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

Part 13, Part 9 "This Court" shall be added to "Court of First Instance".

2. Additional determination

A. The instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendants is not a lease agreement on the instant store.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants newly constructed the instant building at the Plaintiff’s expense, and the Defendants leased the site of the instant building from a third party and bear the following charges: Provided, That the said site lease contract is agreed to be made in the name of the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, and the said contract is similar to the said contract.

However, since the Defendants cancelled the instant contract and failed to perform their duties without any special reasons, the Plaintiff cancelled the instant contract on the grounds of the Defendants’ nonperformance, and sought the amount of money stated in the claim as compensation for damages from the Defendants.

B. The instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is deemed a lease agreement on the store of this case as well as the instant contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, as revealed in the facts and acknowledged facts of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited in paragraph (1) (No. 9, No. 16, and No. 10, No. 16), and as such, it is reasonable to deem that the instant contract was a lease agreement on the store of this case. Moreover, as the Plaintiff, a contractual obligation of the Plaintiff, until August 2016, 2016, declared that the instant building was used as an automobile-related facility or fulfilled the obligation to harm the use thereof so that the Defendants may obtain a detailed license,

As such, it can be seen.