1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. Defendant C moves away from the 109.88 square meters of the real estate listed in the attached list, among the real estate listed in the attached list.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 15, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Defendant B on the attached building by February 15, 2014. Of the buildings listed in the attached Form, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20 million for the first floor store (hereinafter “instant store”) and KRW 1.8 million for the rent month, and KRW 20 million for the second floor house (hereinafter “instant house”) among the buildings listed in the attached Form.

B. According to Article 5 of the instant lease agreement, when the lease contract is terminated, the lessee agreed to recover the store and the house of this case to the lessor and return them to the lessor.

C. After paying the Plaintiff the sum of deposit to KRW 40 million, Defendant B paid the instant store and the instant house to March 15, 2014 while residing in the possession of the instant store and the instant house. However, Defendant B did not pay the rent after March 16, 2014.

Meanwhile, Defendant B operated a restaurant at the instant store in order to operate the restaurant in its inside, installed pipelines connected to the outside from the inner floor of the instant store, and installed a panel, etc. outside the instant store and outside the house.

E. On the expiration date of the contract term of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of his/her intention to refuse to renew the instant lease agreement, and notified Defendant B of his/her intention to restore the instant housing and store to its original state, and the instant lease agreement expired on February 15, 2014.

F. On November 20, 2014, Defendant B filed a report on the closure of the restaurant business related to the instant store, and subsequently, Defendant B did not use and benefit from the instant store.

G. However, the Defendants still possess the instant house, and the Plaintiff is worth KRW 40 million.