1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,975,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 16, 2016 to January 6, 2017.

1. The Defendant has been managing the instant land as one of the co-owners of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Gangseo-gu 612m2 (hereinafter “instant land”).

On January 20, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and the details stated in the lease agreement (Evidence A No. 1) are as follows.

- Indication of real estate: 110 commercial buildings in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Complex (hereinafter “instant provisional building”) - Deposit: 5,000,000 won - Monthly rent: 300,000 won - From January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012, the instant provisional building was constructed before the conclusion of the instant lease contract, and was used as tobacco and used. However, from the time of the conclusion of the instant lease contract, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant rent as stipulated in the instant lease agreement while operating the instant provisional building to repair clothes.

The instant lease agreement was renewed on May 1, 2013, and its maturity was extended until April 30, 2015, and thereafter, it was explicitly renewed.

On the side of the instant land, the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D, 404.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant adjacent land”) are located on the land, and around November 2015, in the course of surveying the boundary of the instant land and the instant adjacent land, the site of the instant building was confirmed to be the adjoining land, not the instant land.

On December 15, 2015, the Plaintiff removed the instant building at the request of E, the owner of the instant adjacent land.

By December 15, 2015, the unpaid rent out of the rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement is KRW 3,025,000.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1, 8, No. 2 to 4, and No. 7, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant was the owner of the instant building constructed on the ground adjacent to the instant land and concluded the instant lease agreement by deceiving the Defendant as if it were the owner of the instant building.