2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) at KRW 751,793.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The court shall recognize the existence and content of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof evidence that denies the content of the statement, so long as the judgment document as to the object of the instant lease agreement is recognized to be genuine in its formation.

In a case where there is a dispute over the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties and the parties concerned, the interpretation of the intent expressed in the disposition document shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively examining the contents of the text, the motive and background of the juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act

(2) On July 12, 2018, the Defendant stated that “The Plaintiff prepared a lease agreement along with a verbal promise to suspend enforcement according to the instant judgment during the implementation period on the condition that the instant lease contract is faithfully implemented,” and that “the said lease agreement is not a lease agreement for the instant building G,” and the Plaintiff also stated that “the said lease agreement is about the right to use the site of the instant building G, not regarding the right to use the site of the instant building, but about G itself.”

In addition, among the indication of the real estate in the instant lease agreement, the location is indicated as “the right to a new site in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, and “Gho Lake site” in the site column, and there is no indication that “Gho” itself was considered as the object of the lease agreement.

Furthermore, the defendant is not the owner of the building G of this case.

Therefore, the subject matter of the instant lease agreement is the building G.