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

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff (the plaintiff in total before and after the change of trade name C and et al.) is the plaintiff in total.

around 2005, the defendant (a corporation before and after the change of the name, D, or hereinafter referred to as "the corporation before and after the change of the name) is called the defendant.

(C) the machines listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant machines”).

(1) The term “instant lease agreement” was set at KRW 17,600,000 per month and KRW 2 years, respectively, and leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Since then, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed by the Defendant’s continuous use of the instant machinery until the instant lawsuit was filed, but the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement after May 2007.

3) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant lease contract by serving the copy of the instant complaint. As such, the Defendant delivered the instant machinery to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 63,600,000 won in arrear from February 1, 2011 to January 31, 2014 (=17,600,000 x 36 months x 36 months), which was sought by the Plaintiff. (b) The fact that the instant lease contract was concluded was concluded is not in dispute between the parties (the Defendant also asserts that the instant lease is void due to the lack of the approval of the board of directors under Article 398 of the Commercial Act, and the fact that the instant lease contract was concluded does not deny itself, as seen below, so long as it is not implicitly acknowledged to have been renewed after February 1, 2011, the issue of whether the instant lease contract was concluded after the termination of the instant lease contract shall not be determined separately.

2. Even after June 15, 2007, the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant machinery.