1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,396,736 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 13, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Basic facts: (a) On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, including a sales contract between the Plaintiff and the principalTex, sold real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) indicated in the separate sheet to the principalTex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “mainT”) at KRW 2.25 billion; (b) the down payment is KRW 100 million; and (c) the remainder KRW 2.15 million was paid on January 30, 2015; and (d) the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the content that the pertinent real estate will be paid simultaneously (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

Matters of special agreement on the evidence No. 1-2, No. 2-3, and No. 4

1. 40 million won, out of the down payment of KRW 100 million, shall be paid at the time of a contract, and KRW 60 million shall be paid at the time of occupancy on July 1, 2014.

2.Advance payments of 8 million won (VAT Map) monthly rent from the date of occupancy to the date of payment of the balance.

3.7.1. Electric fees to be used from moving in to the transfer of ownership shall be borne by the purchaser.

4. Where a person fails to pay a balance by the payment date of the balance, he/she shall restore the factory, machinery and equipment, etc. to its original state, and reimburse 500,00

At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff and the prime contractor entered into the following special agreements:

The Plaintiff received the rent of the instant real estate from July 1, 2014 to January 30, 2015, respectively, in the amount of KRW 40 million, out of KRW 100,000,000,000 on May 28, 2014, the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 60,000,000,00,000, respectively.

On July 1, 2014, the main text has used and profited the real estate of this case by being handed over from the Plaintiff.

In the absence of dispute, the defendant alleged that the main text and the defendant had entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff on the original real estate of this case. However, as mentioned in the latter, if the sub-lease agreement was entered into with the main text, the plaintiff's assertion was modified, and the defendant also argued that the lease agreement on the real estate of this case was entered into with the main text, not with the plaintiff.