1. The above judgment of the court of first instance, including the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A and B expanded by this court.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) on setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million, annual base rent of KRW 182,480,00, and the term of lease from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff delivered the instant dispute ① and ② to the Defendant Co., Ltd.

B. During the term of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant Company: (a) installed facilities, etc. that can engage in outdoor tecing, loaning, burcing, etc. in the part of the instant building, which is not the leased object; and (b) installed in the part of the instant building, which is not the object of the lease (hereinafter “instant dispute”); and (c) performed business activities.

C. Meanwhile, around July 2017, Defendant Company spent KRW 6,000,000 at the cost of waterproof construction due to water leakage from the second floor of the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 48, 53, 55, Eul evidence Nos. 18, 39, 40, 44 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

2. Determination as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant company

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the lease contract for the dispute portion was terminated on March 31, 2018, and the Defendant Company occupied the dispute portion by doing business in the dispute portion ③ rather than the leased object. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant Company delivers the dispute portion to the Plaintiff as the lessor, and the third dispute portion is the building owner.