1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the cancellation shall be dismissed;

2...

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the owner of the instant store. Around August 19, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the said store to D, but around July 3, 2013, the Plaintiff gave up the amount equivalent to the rent from September 2012 to June 2013, and D agreed to deliver the said store to the Plaintiff by August 20, 2013.

However, D did not comply with the above extradition arrangement, and the defendant occupied the store of this case from D by delivery.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 8 million equivalent to the rent from July 2012 to February 2013, as well as the amount equivalent to the rent calculated by the ratio of KRW 1 million per month from March 2013 to the day the delivery of the instant store is completed.

2. Where a person exercises de facto control over an article under the direction of another person in the business of the marketing, only such other person shall be the possessor;

(Article 195 of the Civil Act) According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 195 of the Civil Act, Defendant D leased the instant store to E around September 20, 2012, and the Defendant is recognized as having worked in the said store as the Ulsan Branch of the said company.

According to the above facts of recognition, the possessor of the above store is Co., Ltd. E, and the defendant is merely an assistant who actually controls the above store under the direction of the above company.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the premise that the Defendant is the occupant of the instant store is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance which partially different conclusions is unfair, so the part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the defendant's failure among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation is dismissed.