1. The primary Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B is the building on the ground of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government F (Gu address: Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office G).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. H on May 4, 1998, which owned two-storys housing of the brick slves roof of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G ground (hereinafter “instant building”), died. The co-inheritors I, the Defendant B, and the preliminary Defendants, who were the head-nam co-inheritors, divided the inherited property with an agreement on the sole inheritance of the instant building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name on April 10, 200.

B. Defendant B, except where he was staying in Korea from May 15, 2012 to April 17, 2013, left the Republic of Korea on June 4, 1985 and managed the instant building as his mother, who was living in the United States until he returned to Korea on May 4, 2013, including: (a) the mother, who was living in the instant building; and (b) the lease of each of his houses classified as the agent of Defendant B as his agent.

C. On November 5, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the mother, Defendant B, and the second floor drawings indicating 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, and 203 units on the ship (hereinafter “instant unit”) connecting each point in sequence 1, 200,000 won and 24 months of the lease term (hereinafter “instant unit”) with respect to the portion inside the ship (40,000 square meters) connecting each point in sequence 1, 2, 300,000 won and 47,00,000 won as the down payment on the same day, and the director was each of the instant units on December 18, 2010, and received the move-in report on the resident registration of the same month, and received the move-in report on the same month on the same day.

C. On April 23, 2014, I died, and Defendant B and the conjunctive Defendants jointly inherited.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 (including additional numbers), Eul evidence No. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is that the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on December 18, 2012, but it was terminated on December 18, 2014 by stating that the Plaintiff had no intention to renew to the Defendant B, and that the Plaintiff was around 1, 2014.