1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. Of the first floor of the building listed in the attached list, the attached sheet No. 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 35.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 24, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for the transfer of business with Dongyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dongyang”) on a three-dimensional ready-mixed factory (hereinafter “Defendant factory”) located in 188-11 at a three-dimensional normal time (hereinafter “this case’s transfer of business”). From October 1, 2013, the Defendant is operating the Defendant factory.

B. On October 1, 2013, the Defendant used the portion (a) part (a) of 387 square meters in a ship connecting each point of the attached Table 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 35 among the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff, which was used as the office of the same Yangyang as the Defendant’s factory. Of the 1st floor of the building in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant used the portion (a) of 387 square meters in a ship connected each point of 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 400 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) as the office. Of the 188-1 factory site in the 188-1, 2013 square meters in the 369,129 square meters owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is using as the access road to the Defendant’s factory.

C. The instant building and access road site are not included in the subject of acquisition of the contract.

On July 11, 2016, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to enter into a lease agreement on a long-term unleased real estate, and sent a certificate verifying that the Plaintiff is entitled to return the real estate to its original state if the Plaintiff did not reply to the conclusion of the said lease agreement by August 31, 2016.

E. On August 29, 2016, the Defendant accepted the Plaintiff at the time of receipt from the Dongyang as it was, and the instant building and the instant access road were acquired under the same condition as they were used free of charge, and the Plaintiff renounced the preferential purchase right under the condition that the instant access road problems should be resolved, and thus, the Plaintiff recognized the use of the instant access road free of charge. The Defendant sent an answer to the purport that demanding the lease contract is unreasonable.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul.