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. 1) Real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) as indicated in the real estate ownership relationship, etc.

) The building on the ground of two lots, e.g., Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City E, where the store of this case and this case is located (hereinafter “instant building”).

) The co-owners are co-owners of G, H, I, and J (hereinafter referred to as “co-owners”).

(2) Defendant C leased the instant store from co-owners and operated the PC in the name of “K”.

Defendant B and D are the administrators of the instant building.

B. On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement, etc. (Defendant B’s agent’s seal on the lease agreement)

) From the point of this case, the instant store was leased KRW 50 million, KRW 5.2 million per month, KRW 5.2 million per month (excluding value-added tax, payment on June 26), and KRW 24 months from the date of delivery of real estate during the period of time until June 26, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Around that time, the Plaintiff acquired the PC room business from C, and paid KRW 250 million to C on June 27, 2013 ( deposit KRW 50 million).

(hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of rights”). C.

The co-owners of the instant building were to use the first floor or the 111st floor of the instant building as a convalescent hospital on or around August 5, 2013, and the lessee started to remove the building from the 2,7, and 8th floor of the instant building, which was first removed from the respective floors or units of the instant building.

1) In a lawsuit seeking revocation of the instant lease agreement and claim for damages against the Plaintiff’s co-owners, the judgment became final and conclusive that there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge the co-owners’ duty of disclosure of the plan to extend or rebuild the instant building to a convalescent hospital (Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na2016079, Supreme Court Decision 2016Da252843, Jun. 30, 2015).