1. The Defendant indicated on the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, among the 1058 square meters of a 1st floor store underground in the attached Table list to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2008, the Plaintiff leased out a sub-lease contract with the Defendant regarding the instant store (hereinafter “the instant sub-lease contract”) with the following contents, among the 1058 square meters in size 1,2,3,4, and 1 attached drawings among the 1058 square meters in the 1st floor store of the 1st floor store of the building underground in the annexed sheet, which are linked in sequence with each point of (a) part (a) No. 83,6.08595 square meters (hereinafter “the instant store”). The instant sub-lease contract was made by impliedly renewed the instant sub-lease contract.

The principal terms and conditions of the sub-lease contract of this case - Lease Deposit: 12,00,000 won, monthly rent: 670,000 won - Term of lease: 12 months from May 8, 2008 to May 7, 2009 - Article 6: the lessee shall submit the following documents as D members:

b. (Items - Items - Item 7 of Article 7: T, B, B, B, L (only 216,700 won for rent, 30,000 won for rent, 230,00 won for rent, 30,00 won for rent, 230,000 won for D management expenses) that are agreed upon by the management committee to comply with the articles of association and bylaws as a member, with the purport that it will be in accordance with the matters resolved by the management committee, and if it is recognized as an insolvent store in accordance with management expenses, expenses, expenses, and quality assessment (products) at the time of the occurrence of default on all public charges, such as expenses, expenses, and quality assessment (products).

B. Since then, the Defendant was in arrears, and the Seoul Central District Court 2012 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the name map of the building against which the Plaintiff sought the delivery of the instant store on the grounds of the delinquency in rent as Seoul Central District Court 140605. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff mediated with the Defendant by withdrawing the lawsuit regarding the name map of the said building, and the said conciliation decision became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On the other hand, around October 2013, the D Operating Committee passed a resolution with the consent of 84% by the D Operating Committee on the agenda items to be withdrawn from the D Operating Committee on the grounds of the violation of the rules of the Operating Committee.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;