1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiffs are sectional owners who own each of the stores described in the claims in the K store on the ground of the Seoul Special Metropolitan CityJ and 3 lots (hereinafter “instant commercial buildings”), and they are the 1-A of the claim by the plaintiff A.

Plaintiff C’s claim No. 1-b.

The plaintiff D leased each of the stores stated in Paragraph 2 of the claim to I (hereinafter referred to as "I"), respectively, to the defendant Corporation I (hereinafter referred to as "I"), and the defendant Corporation I stated in Paragraph 1 of the claim to the defendant corporation, and the defendant corporation's identity to the defendant corporation is stated in Section 2 of the claim.

No. 2 of the purport of the claim that the defendant corporation will use the store stated in the subsection.

Section 2-B of the purport of the claim that Defendant Hawkkiscom Company stated in the port.

The store mentioned in the paragraph was transferred from I to I.

B. On August 2006, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with I as to each store stated in the purport of the claim, and renewed the lease agreement every two years thereafter. On August 31, 2012, before the renewed lease period arrives, the Plaintiffs notified I of the refusal to renew the said lease agreement.

C. The Defendants currently occupy each of the above stores.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract for each of the above stores concluded between the plaintiffs and I was terminated as of August 31, 2012, the defendants, the former lessee, have the duty to deliver each of the divided stores owned by the plaintiffs due to the termination of the above lease contract.

On this issue, the defendant Soviet Co., Ltd. claims No. 2-C.

Since M denies the possession of the store as stated in paragraph (1) and M occupies it while running the business at the above store, the above defendant's claim against the above defendant is alleged to the purport that it is unjustifiable, but the purport of each of the statements and arguments as stated in the evidence Nos. 7 and 8 is as whole.