1. Defendant B received KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s payment:

A. Defendant B shall list the annexed sheet.

Facts of recognition

On September 5, 2015, Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with regard to the size of 145.34 square meters in the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 2 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the 161.98 square meters in the 1st floor store of the building listed in the attached Table No. 161.98 square meters, with respect to the (Ga) section No. 145.34 square meters in order to connect each point in the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 145.34 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

(hereinafter “instant contract”). Defendant B paid the above lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million to D, and commenced possession of the instant commercial building.

On June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the instant commercial building from D.

From March 30, 2018, Defendant C reported the moving household to the commercial building of this case and resides therein.

【The ground for recognition】 The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the termination of the instant commercial building due to the absence of dispute, the respective descriptions of Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the cause of the entire pleadings without permission. Defendant B leased the commercial building of this case, and sublet it to Defendant C without permission. Accordingly, the instant contract was terminated.

Judgment

First of all, from March 30, 2018, Defendant C is residing in the commercial building of this case after filing a report on the moving household.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that Defendant C remains temporarily in the room located in the shopping mall of this case as an employee employed by Defendant B, and according to the written evidence Nos. 2 and 3, Defendant C can be acknowledged as being employed by Defendant C in the workplace operated by Defendant B as a lessee.

Considering the above, it is insufficient to recognize that Defendant C was residing in the shopping mall of this case and only with the evidence No. 6, Defendant C’s subleting the shopping mall of this case to Defendant C without permission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise of the unauthorized lease is without merit.

Whether or not the lease term expires after the expiration of the lease term.