1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from July 19, 2015, entry in the separate sheet.

On April 3, 2007, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to D Nos. 101, 1503, located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant condominium building”, and the above partitioned ownership building is referred to as “1503,” as stated in the attached list.

The Plaintiff’s lease agreement between E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on July 2, 2013 and the Plaintiff is “E” with the following terms: (a) up to May 14, 2014; (b) up to KRW 900 million for lease deposit; (c) KRW 35 million for an apartment for monthly rent; and (d) KRW 5 million for an officetel as a unit of household; and (e) KRW 1-1 for an officetel as the instant lease agreement.

Upon entering into a sub-lease contract (A) with the Defendant on September 27, 2013, E and delivered the said apartment complex and officetel to E. The Defendant entered into the said sub-lease contract with the following: (a) KRW 1503; (b) KRW 30 million; (c) KRW 190,000; and (d) KRW 1.9 million; and (c) the period from September 27, 2013 to September 26, 2015; and (d) the Plaintiff, a lessor, approved the conclusion of the said sub-lease contract with the Defendant on September 24, 2013 (AA 11-6). From September 24, 2013 to September 1503, the Defendant occupied the said head of the said sub-lease contract (applicable to recognition Gap 1-11-113, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 98-16 each of the arguments and the purport of the entire pleadings.

Judgment

Since the right of rent of the sub-lease is established on the basis of the right of lease of the sub-lease, the right of rent of the sub-lease becomes extinct on the basis of the right of lease of the sub-lease.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 1503, a direct lease object to the plaintiff, a lessor, pursuant to Article 630 of the Civil Code, as the sub-lessee with the consent of the lessor.

In addition, the defendant continuously occupies 1503 units even though the above lease and sub-lease have ceased to exist, and thus, he/she uses and benefits from them.