1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant and the instant real estate entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a deposit of KRW 50,00,000 for the instant real estate, KRW 1,980,00 for the monthly rent of KRW 1,980,00 for a period of two years (including value-added tax), and that the Defendant delayed the payment of the instant rent, and that the period has expired, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from July 1, 2014 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the tenant who entered into the instant lease contract with the plaintiff is not the defendant but B.

2. Each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including each number), alone, is insufficient to deem the defendant as a lessee of the instant lease agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the witness B’s testimony, only the fact that the real estate of this case was used as the real estate execution office is recognized when lending the name of the defendant who is a bad credit B, and concluding the instant lease contract with the plaintiff and paying it as the difference.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the lessee of the lease contract of this case is the defendant is dismissed in its entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.