1. The part concerning the claim for removal among the lawsuits in this case shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant shall set forth in [Attachment 1] List 1 and 2 to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Pursuant to Article 42(1) of the State Property Act and Article 38(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the Plaintiff is a State-owned property administration which is entrusted with the administrative affairs of administration and disposal of each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) by the State from the Minister of Strategy and Finance, the office of general administration

B. On June 17, 2008, the Plaintiff concluded a loan agreement with the Defendant for State-owned property regarding each of the instant real estate, and concluded a loan agreement again (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the intent to renew the said loan agreement on June 17, 2013.

The main contents thereof are as follows:

Article 1 (Purpose of Use) of the Loan Agreement for State-owned property shall be the restaurant.

Article 2 (Period of Loan) The term of loan shall be five years from June 17, 2013 to June 16, 2018.

Article 5 (Preservation of Loan Property) The defendant shall be bound to preserve the leased property with the care of a good manager, and shall not claim against the plaintiff the expenses incurred in ordinary repairs, the expenses incurred in the facilities established for business operations, and other expenses incurred in relation to renovation and repair without the plaintiff's approval.

Where the loan period under Article 11 (Return of Loan Property) expires or this contract is terminated, the defendant shall restore it to its original state within the period designated by the plaintiff and return it in the presence of the plaintiff.

Provided, That where the restoration of the property to be used is unnecessary in the nature of the purpose of use and the approval of the change of the original state is obtained, it may not be returned to the original state.

C. On May 8, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The instant loan agreement has expired as of June 16, 2018, and it is not possible to renew the loan agreement pursuant to Article 46 of the State Property Act.” On or before January 8, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred each of the instant real estate to the Defendant.