1. The main and ancillary claims for the removal of the floor of the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. The plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 1, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B as between KRW 145.64 square meters on the land’s 145.64 square meters (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, with the lease deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 600,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease term of October 31, 2008.

B. Defendant B operated the PC business in the name of the DPC bank (hereinafter “instant PC bank”) in the instant commercial building.

C. The name of the instant PC business operator is changed in sequence from Defendant B to Defendant E, F, and Defendant C, and Defendant C acquired all rights, such as facilities related to the instant PC from F around February 201.

On March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant C with the terms of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000, and the term of lease from March 1, 2011 to 24 months (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

E. While Defendant C operated the PC in the instant commercial building, Defendant C demanded that the part of the water leakage would be repaired by the leakage that occurred around June 2013.

F. However, the Plaintiff did not repair the water leakage part. Ultimately, Defendant C closed the instant PC on September 2, 2013, and thereafter did not engage in the PC business in the instant commercial building.

G. On November 6, 2013, Defendant C asserted that he/she suffered damages due to the foregoing leakages, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking damages from the District Court Decision 2013Da53403.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The Plaintiff, as to whether the primary and conjunctive claims for the removal of the floor of the instant lawsuit are legitimate, primarily against Defendant B, sought removal of the front from Defendant C on the inner floor of the instant PC.