1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B delivers a building listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant C shall enter the attached list.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. 1) On December 8, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s building indicated in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”).

(B) A lease agreement with respect to security deposit amounting to KRW 20 million, monthly renting KRW 4.5 million, lease period fixed on November 30, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On August 7, 2017, Defendant B: (a) sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement after entering into the said agreement; (b) the said agreement was rescinded between the Defendants and transferred the right of lease to Defendant C; and (c) the said content certification reached the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of whole pleadings]

B. In full view of the allegations and determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant B transferred the right of lease under the instant lease agreement to Defendant C without the Plaintiff’s consent, and the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the intent of termination was delivered to Defendant B, and thus, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated. (2) The Defendant B concluded the instant lease agreement after the Defendants entered into the said agreement, and concluded the instant lease agreement with the entirety of the Defendants as the lessee for convenience, but only entered into the agreement with the Defendants under the name of Defendant B, but the Plaintiff was merely aware of the fact that the Defendants assumed the deposit amount under the instant lease agreement with the Defendants each KRW 10 million, and that the Plaintiff was paid by the passbook in the name of Defendant C, and that Defendant B was removed from the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request.

Even if Defendant B’s assertion that the Defendants borne the deposit amount by KRW 10 million and paid the monthly rent in the passbook in the name of Defendant C, the above fact alone is not that of Defendant B.