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

A. The East Petroleum Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dong Petroleum Co., Ltd.”) is the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant building”), and the Defendant is a company holding the portion of the instant building, which connects each point of the attached sheet No. 1, 2, 10, 11, and 1 among the instant building, to the 413.82 square meters of the part and the 5, 6, 7, 8, and 5 of the attached sheet No. 2, each point of which are successively connected to each point of the attached sheet No. 413.82 and the 131.18 square meters of the first floor (hereinafter “the part occupied

B. On May 30, 2012, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant occupied part from ASEAN Petroleum with the term “within December 31, 2013;” and (b) again leased the instant occupied part with the term “within the term of lease 2014.12”

(C) A lease agreement entered into around 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On June 24, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the transfer of the occupied part of the instant building against the Defendant, who occupied the instant occupied part by subrogation of ASEAN, in order to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership of the instant building, as the buyer who entered into a sales contract with ASEAN Petroleum on June 24, 2013.

In the first instance of the instant case, the Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment on the ground that “the instant lease agreement constitutes a false conspiracy and thus null and void” (Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap22500), but the appellate court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Defendant has a legitimate right to possess the leased portion of the instant possession until December 2015 as the lessee of the instant possession, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant lease agreement constitutes a false representation or an anti-social legal act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, and thus, the Plaintiff was subject to the judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant lease agreement constituted a false representation or anti-social legal act (Seoul High Court 2014Na2030917).