2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s primary claim and the plaintiff's main claim.

A. On October 1, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, who had maintained de facto marriage for about 10 years, leased the instant building from de facto infection with the lessee as the Plaintiff, for a period of 24 months from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2015, by setting the lease deposit amounting to KRW 10 million, monthly rent amounting to KRW 300,000,000, and the lease term.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Plaintiff, according to the instant lease agreement, was living together with the Defendant in the instant building, and the de facto marital relationship with the Defendant was broken down on or around April 2015.

C. After the lease term of the instant lease expires on September 30, 2015, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement on the instant building as of October 1, 2015, under the same conditions as the instant lease agreement, and the deposit amounting to KRW 10 million was to be substituted by the deposit amount paid to the new infection pursuant to the instant lease agreement.

On the other hand, on January 22, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a text message stating, “I am burgy if things are arranged at the house to be released. I am am burgy. I am burgy.” On October 12, 2016, “I am burgy, I am burgy. I am burgy. I am burgy. I am burgy. I am burgy. I am burgy. I am burgy at any time. I am burgy. I am burgy. I am hurgy. I am burgy. I am burgy, I am am burgy, I am on October 18, 2016.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff arranged the Plaintiff’s products and clothes, etc. in the instant building.

【Legal basis for recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 2, 1, 2-1, and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Judgment 1 on the main claim of this case is impliedly renewed, and the lease contract of this case remains now at present. The plaintiff is terminated the lease contract of this case and is from the new salt.