1. Of the buildings, each point of the attached table Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 4.

A. Entry in the attached list;

1. Building (hereinafter referred to as “instant subparagraph C store”) and the separate sheet

2. All buildings (hereinafter referred to as “instant subparagraph D stores”) are part of the first floor G Dong-dong E (hereinafter referred to as “Fhodong-dong first floor”) located in Nam-gu, Daegu-gu E.

B. Around March 2017, the Plaintiff leased the instant subparagraph C and D store owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 5,500,000, and the lease term of KRW 15,00,00, from March 15, 2017 to March 14, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”

C. The Defendant is running Mamart business on the first floor of G, with the trade name of Hmart, including the instant heading C and D stores. The Defendant is part of the place of business, which is part of the Plaintiff’s business site: (a) the size of 324.0 square meters in the part (a) in the ship (hereinafter “instant part”) connected with each of the items in the order of the Plaintiff’s Mamart Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, and 4 in the attached Form (a) and the attached Form (a) Nos. 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, and 8 in the order of the extension thereof; (b) the size of 108.0 square meters in the part (b) in the ship (hereinafter “instant part”) connected each of the items in the attached Form (a) and the period of lease stipulated in the instant lease agreement. 【No ground exists between the recognized parties; and (b) the purport of the entire pleading No. 1 or No. 4 (a.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. On the ground that the lease contract of this case has expired due to the expiration of the term, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the indication of the part (a) and (b) of the leased object.

As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the building leased by the plaintiff is owned by the co-ownership, and the relation of rights and the details, scope, and location of the leased building is unclear, and that the part of the building is not specified, so it is difficult to respond to the lusium.

B. We examine the above evidence and the contents of Gap evidence No. 9 together with the purport of the whole pleadings.