A. 1) On June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, etc., the second underground floor and the seventh floor building located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

2) As to the leased object of this case, between E (licensed Real Estate Agent) who acquired ownership with respect to the Plaintiff on the same day and F (Defendant B’s husband) who represented the Plaintiff B, the entire and the 1st,243.07 square meters of the underground floor among the above buildings (hereinafter “the leased object of this case”).

(1) As to the term of lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), a lease agreement consisting of KRW 250,000,000 per deposit, KRW 11,70,00 per month of rent and KRW 11,70,000 per month of management expenses (excluding value-added tax) and KRW 3,107,605 per month of management expenses (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Paragraph (2) of the terms of the instant lease agreement provides that “The lessee shall order the store after the expiration of the contract to be named after the expiration of the contract without any condition, and the said contract shall be put to a protocol of settlement prior to filing a lawsuit in order to secure this issue.”

3) Meanwhile, from July 25, 2011 to the date of the instant lease, the Defendants operated singing points with “G” in the instant leased object. (b) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B on January 15, 2016 against the Defendant B seeking delivery of the leased object following the termination of the instant lease agreement, and the Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2049427 issued on January 19, 201, which ordered the Defendant B to deliver the leased object of the instant lease to the Plaintiff was finalized as is.

2. On February 9, 2017, the Plaintiff sought compulsory enforcement based on the above judgment as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017No346, but the Plaintiff asserted that Defendant C, who was at the present site, is operating the instant leased object solely by accepting the leased object from Defendant B, around January 2015.