1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 208,50,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 15, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Basic Facts

Related C is the Plaintiff’s son, D is the Plaintiff’s spouse as C’s spouse, and E is the Plaintiff’s mother as D’s mother.

F is the actual operator of G Co., Ltd. (formerly: H. hereinafter referred to as “G”), and the Defendant’s sentence is the Defendant.

G is a legal entity that operates a bath (hereinafter “instant bath”) in the said real estate as the owner of heading 101 and 202 under the ground in the J on the land of Suwon-si, Suwon-si and two parcels.

G Co., Ltd. entered into a related lease agreement with E around September 2008, there is no dispute between the parties to enter into a lease contract of KRW 100 million in the name of D, but the fact that he/she agreed to receive KRW 100 million in the lease deposit after the preparation of the contract.

The lease agreement on a store among the bath bath of this case was set as follows: ② lease agreement on a store among the bath bath of this case was set as KRW 180,000,000; ② lease agreement on a store and a store among the bath bath of this case was set as KRW 80,000; ③ lease agreement on a store and a store among the bath bath of this case was set as KRW 80,000,000,000; and ③

(2) Each of the instant lease agreements is based on the following: (a) each of the instant lease agreements; (b) each of the instant lease agreements; and (c) each of the instant lease agreements was paid KRW 360 million in total to G with the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant lease agreements”).

On August 11, 2009, the Suwon District Court, including the preparation of notarial deeds between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, rendered a voluntary decision to commence the instant bathing, and the Defendant asserted that he/she had a claim for the construction cost of the instant bathing in respect of the said bathing, filed a lien report in the said auction procedure, and drafted the appearance shown in the operation of the instant bathing in the said auction procedure, asserting that he/she had a claim for the construction cost of the said bathing.

However, the right of retention claimed by the defendant is a lawsuit for confirmation of existence of the right of retention filed against the defendant by the voluntary auction applicant.