(a) the annexed list;

A. On December 14, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment to Defendant C with the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, KRW 800,000 per month of rent (payment on December 19), and the lease period from December 19, 2014 to December 18, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Thereafter, Defendant C paid the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 as lease deposit, and around December 18, 2014, Defendant C received the instant apartment from the Plaintiff and has resided until now.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement.

(Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is the lessee under the lease agreement of this case. The defendant C is the possessor of the apartment of this case. The plaintiff is the same as the primary claim in the lease agreement of this case.

In this case, the plaintiff actually leased the apartment of this case to the defendant C. However, due to the circumstances of the defendant C, the defendant B is formally recorded in the tenant's name, and the defendant C is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the actual tenant of the above lease is the defendant C. Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim under the different premise is without merit.

3. Determination on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendant C

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, Defendant C did not pay more than two vehicles as stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and it is apparent in the record that the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the said lease agreement was served on the said Defendant. Accordingly, the said lease agreement was lawfully terminated around that time.

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, Defendant C’s apartment in this case is the Plaintiff.