1. At the same time, the Defendant received each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, KRW 67,823,222 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff E, on behalf of the instant church, concluded a lease contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) on behalf of the Defendant, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000 (payment on September 9), and the lease term of the instant real estate from June 9, 2014 to June 8, 2016.

Plaintiff

On June 9, 2014, the church paid KRW 100 million to the defendant the lease deposit.

B. On November 11, 2014, the F of A religious organization (hereinafter “F”) to which the Plaintiff church belonged, resolved to dismiss the Plaintiff church E from the position of the member of the Plaintiff church, namely, to dismiss the wife and G from the position of the member of the Plaintiff church, and to dismiss the Plaintiff church and G as the temporary member of the Plaintiff church.

E filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity of the above resolution against F in the name of the principal and the plaintiff church (Seoul Northern District Court 2015Gahap24311), but the court rendered a dismissal judgment on May 26, 2016 on the ground that E is no longer a legitimate representative of the plaintiff church, and the same year.

6. 17 The above judgment became final and conclusive.

C. On November 16, 2014, after receiving the notice of dismissal from F, E decided to withdraw from F with the consent of 14 of all the 14 members present, holding a joint council of the Plaintiff church.

G filed an application with the principal and the Plaintiff church for provisional disposition prohibiting access to the instant real estate and interfering with activities of the Council.

(This Court 2015Kahap3). On June 12, 2015, the court dismissed the application of the Plaintiff church on the grounds that there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff church had gone through the party meeting resolution procedure, but accepted the application for G E.

In the above decision, the Fran-out decision of November 16, 2014 was invalid on the ground that the Fran-out decision was held by E without any authority after the dismissal.

E filed an objection or appeal against the above decision, but the appeal was dismissed on April 6, 2016, and the above decision became final and conclusive. D.

The instant real estate on June 2015