1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the pertinent part of the court's decision, thereby admitting this case in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional matters to be determined by the Defendant, the attached list

3. 4. The plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the partitions between the existing leased real estate and the instant real estate should be installed with the consent of the owners of each building as stated in paragraph 4. (hereinafter "existing leased real estate"), so it is not possible to comply with the plaintiff's request for extradition.

As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant runs a business as one place of business after removing a wall from the partitions of the existing leased real estate and the instant real estate. However, this is merely the Plaintiff’s consent for the Defendant’s business convenience, and as long as the Defendant, regardless of whether the Defendant consented to the owner of the existing leased real estate, is obliged to restore the instant real estate to the Plaintiff by installing partitionss (construction walls) and then deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, regardless of whether the Defendant consented to the owner of the existing leased real estate (see Article 10 of the instant lease agreement). Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.