1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who falls under the following order to pay.

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1 of the parties) The Plaintiff is the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building (hereinafter “instant building”).

) On the first floor and the first floor of the underground, the first floor, and the second floor are leased from the DF and operated by the EF. (2) The Defendant is a doctor who transferred part of the second floor of the instant building from the Plaintiff and operated the FF member(s).

B. On January 24, 2014, the Plaintiff’s spouse G entered into a sub-lease contract on part of the second floor of the instant building (including the common area) with DFD on January 24, 2014, with a lease deposit of KRW 200,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 22,968,720, monthly rent of KRW 6,241,500 (each value-added tax separate) and monthly management fee of KRW 6,241,50 (each value-added tax separate), and with a lease period of January 24, 2014 to January 31, 2024, G leased a lease contract of KRW 10,00,00,000, and the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement on September 7, 2016 to change the lease agreement from G to the Plaintiff.

3) On January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff obtained the consent of the Do Lease Mutual Aid Association, and among the Defendant, part of the second floor of the instant building (one president room, four rooms, one two rooms, and one sub-lease), between the Defendant and the Do Lease Mutual Aid Association.

As to the monthly rent of KRW 10,00,000 (including general management expenses) and the sublease period from January 23, 2017 to January 22, 2018, the sublease contract (hereinafter “the sublease contract in this case”).

B. The second floor of the instant building was used by the Defendant, and the space of the rash and the preparation room was agreed to be jointly used by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the sub-lease contract and the Defendant’s evictioning Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant sub-lease contract was terminated by the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, on the grounds that the trust relationship with the Defendant has ceased to exist and it is impossible to maintain the instant sub-lease contract. The warden served the Defendant on July 14, 2017.