A. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a sub-lease contract to which the Defendant sub-leases KRW 3,500,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000 for each deposit of KRW 702,703 of the D Building in Busan Shipping Daegu, which the Defendant leased from Nonparty C (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).

B. On April 10, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement of KRW 80,000,000 on the principal of the debt, which was issued by the Busan East Law Firm, No. 550, the Busan East Law Firm.

(hereinafter referred to as the "notarial deed of this case"). . [Grounds for recognition] . [No dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, Eul evidence 1 through 9 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no debt under the notarial deed of this case, and therefore, there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul's evidence Nos. 7 and 8, the plaintiff agreed to acquire the right to lease of each of the real estate of this case from the defendant and pay 80,000,000 won with the acquisition price. In the process, the notarial deed of this case was prepared for 80,000,000 won for the payment of the acquisition price, and the right to lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was lawfully rescinded, according to each of the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff's obligation to acquire the right to lease of this case against the defendant under the notarial deed of this case does not exist any longer. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion has merit.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant: (a) claims on the notarial deed of this case are claims for the transfer price; and (b) the lease contract was rescinded; (c) the above claims on the notarial deed are identical to all claims on the notarial deed of this case arising from the sublease