On December 14, 2011, the Defendant’s husband C purchased the land E (hereinafter “instant building”) from D, Gunsan-si, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant building on December 21, 201.

When the Defendant’s husband acquired ownership of the building of this case, the Plaintiff occupied the building of this case and operated a child care center under the name of F in the building of this case.

On December 20, 2013, the Plaintiff promised to pay the Defendant the monthly rent of KRW 21,00,000 and the monthly rent of KRW 21,00,000 from January to February 2013, 2013 under its own circumstances.

“Preparation and delivery of a letter of agreement described above.”

(hereinafter “instant First Agreement”). Public charges in arrears incurred by the Plaintiff while occupying the instant building reaches five million won.

On February 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the instant building to the husband of the Defendant, and operated the childcare center with the same trade name from H in Gunsan-si.

The Defendant also operates a child-care center under the name of “I”. On December 19, 2014, the Defendant drafted an agreement to pay KRW 15,000,000 to the Plaintiff in return for the closure of the child-care center operated by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the second agreement”).

On December 19, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for closure with G operated in the past, and thereafter, the Plaintiff does not operate a childcare center business in any other place.

[Reasons for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, fact-finding with respect to the military city of this court, the whole purport of the pleadings, the principal lawsuit as to the counterclaim, and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to judgment as to counterclaim as to counterclaim, the plaintiff extinguished the obligation to pay KRW 26 million to the defendant under the first agreement of this case pursuant to the second agreement of this case, and the defendant bears the obligation to pay KRW 15 million to the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant bears the obligation to pay KRW 15 million to the plaintiff pursuant to the second agreement of this case.