1. The defendant shall order the plaintiff to write down the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 29, 2016, the Plaintiff leased real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) listed in the separate sheet to C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) under the following conditions.

The lease period: From March 1, 2017 to February 28, 2019: 20,000,000 won: 20,350,000 won (excluding value-added tax of 18,50,000 won, value-added tax of 1,850,000 won, management expenses, public charges, electricity and water taxes, etc.);

B. C, with the Plaintiff’s consent on January 8, 2018, sublet the instant real estate to the Defendant under the following conditions:

Period: 22,50,000 won (including management expenses and value-added tax) for the monthly rent of KRW 20,000,000 from January 8, 2018 to February 28, 2019: 22,550,000

C. From October 2017, C did not pay rent, public charges, and management expenses, and on this ground, the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract with C on June 4, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 3

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the sublease contract between C and the defendant also terminated by termination.

As such, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to clarify the real estate of this case.

In this regard, the defendant brought about KRW 18,70,000 of the cost of the building in this case, and claimed that there is a legitimate right to possess the building in this case until repayment is made, since it falls under the necessary cost relating to the preservation of the building in this case.

However, the statement of Eul evidence No. 6 alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid necessary expenses for the preservation of the building of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. According to the statement of Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant under the above sub-lease contract can be recognized as having agreed not to claim the return of the required urban expenses, so the above argument is rejected.

In addition, the Defendant has contracted the interior work to E (E) corporation (E) by the former lessee Co., Ltd.