1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the original Defendant and the Defendant, set the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million from July 13, 201 to July 12, 2012, and the monthly rent of KRW 7 million from July 13, 201, and the monthly rent of KRW 5 million (excluding value-added tax) to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff and D, the co-owner of the instant franchise, asserted that the lease agreement with the Defendant was terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and the Daejeon District Court 2013Gadan3948, the said court rendered a judgment on August 23, 2013 that “the Defendant is paid KRW 108,590,407 from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, delivered the instant franchise to the Plaintiff and D”. The Plaintiff and D appealed the said judgment with the Daejeon District Court 2013Na15430 on February 11, 2015, the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 24, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on the issue of this case, derived from the Plaintiff’s assertion by the original Defendant, was based on the right of retention from July 201 to July 11, 2012, and from the next day to January 2013, the Defendant occupied the instant cartel based on the right of retention from the next day to April 14, 2015.

The Defendant is the lien holder from February 2, 2013 to April 14, 2015, and the Defendant breached his duty to manage the instant cartel in accordance with Article 324 of the Civil Act while occupying the instant cartel.