1. The defendant's appeal against the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party C is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2009, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement between D and D with regard to the building listed in the separate sheet owned by it (hereinafter “instant building”), with regard to the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, KRW 500,000,000 per month, and the lease term of KRW 1, 200,000 per month, from June 1, 2009 to June 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and thereafter, received the instant building from D around that time, and thereafter began to operate a knnish restaurant from that time after completing business registration by making the location of the instant building as the location of the building and completing business registration on June 9, 2009.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 27, 201, respectively, after they jointly purchased the instant building from D on June 7, 2011.

C. On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) sent to the Defendant a written notification to the effect that “the term of lease of the instant lease expires on June 1, 2014,” by content-certified mail, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) sent to the Defendant a written notification to the effect that “the term of lease of the instant lease expires,” which reaches the Defendant around that time.

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

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiffs are deemed to have succeeded to the status of a lessor under the instant lease agreement as a transferee of the instant building (Article 3(2) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act). Meanwhile, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on June 1, 2012 and June 1, 2013, and its lease term was finally extended until June 1, 2014.

(4) Article 10(4) of the same Act. However, the notification by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on December 30, 2013 to the Defendant’s refusal to renew the instant lease agreement is not different from the notification by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on December 30, 2013. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease agreement was terminated on June 1, 2014.

Therefore, it is true.