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

A. On June 20, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant land from Nonparty B to Nonparty B, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million from June 20, 2014 to June 19, 2016, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 2.5 million from June 20, 2014 to June 19, 2016. Article 16 of the lease agreement (Evidence (Evidence 3) is explicitly renewed two times thereafter, and “A and B shall extend the lease agreement for one year under the same conditions as the instant lease agreement if either of the parties does not express a separate intention from one month before the expiration of the lease term.”

The lease term was extended by June 19, 2018.

However, after the Defendant entered into the above lease contract with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), the Defendant did not pay only once until now the rent.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the rent and the late payment charge to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s instant lease agreement is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

In order to obtain the right to supply scrap metal, the Defendant only prepared a form lease contract retroactive on the date with the help of the Plaintiff’s spouse D, and the Defendant actually did not have any possession or use of the instant land.

2. Determination

A. There is no dispute between the parties regarding the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant came up with the Gap evidence lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. However, in light of the following circumstances recognized by the plaintiff, the evidence presented by the defendant and the whole purport of the pleading, it is reasonable to view the lease contract of this case as null and void as it is by a false declaration of conspiracy.

(1) The Defendant did not actually use the instant land, and there was no difference between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff that paid the lease deposit and the rent.

(ii).