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

A. On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000,000, and the term of lease from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015.

At the time, the Plaintiff agreed to sublease the instant store to a third party by Defendant B.

B. After renting the instant store, Defendant B leased Nos. 122, 123, 124, and 125, adjacent to the instant store and the instant store (hereinafter “BSI”) to SIE (hereinafter “SIE”).

C. On July 1, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the instant store to Defendant B with the rental fee of five million won, the lease period of March 31, 2011, and the lease agreement that the Plaintiff leases the instant store to Defendant B with the lease deposit of five million won, the monthly rent of 400,000 won, and the lease period of March 31, 2012. On April 1, 2012, the Plaintiff was concluded with the lease agreement that the instant store is leased to Defendant B with the lease deposit of five million won, monthly rent of 450,000 won, and the lease period of March 31, 2013.

Defendant C succeeded to the status of the lessee of the instant store on September 25, 2013, and obtained consent from the Plaintiff.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion of overlapping lawsuit

A. The instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is identical to the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gada6139 case, which is currently pending, contrary to the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit.

B. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion No. 6, the instant lawsuit against Defendant C was occupied by Defendant C without permission from October 2013 to March 2014.