1. Text 1.b of the judgment of the first instance; and

The part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid under this subsection.

Basic Facts

On June 10, 2009, Daero Co., Ltd. and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on June 10, 2009, with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 150 million, monthly rent of KRW 17 million, monthly rent of KRW 17 million, and the lease agreement between the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) with respect to the real estate of at least 1,156.22 square meters and 1,156.22 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant building”) as indicated in the attached Table (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”). The lease agreement was concluded between the Defendant and the Defendant on June 11, 2009, with the special terms and conditions of the said lease that guarantee the lease term at least five years, and that the ownership of the instant building will be transferred.

The Defendant established and operated a sanatorium for older persons (hereinafter referred to as “instant medical care center”) in the name of “us welfare father” in the subject matter of this case.

On December 31, 2010, Daesung Co., Ltd. and the Defendant sold the instant building to Daesung Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Masung”), and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the instant building on the same day, and Daesung decided to succeed to the lessor’s status against the Defendant.

The evidence No. 2-1 (written copy of the real estate register) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On June 11, 2011, Daesung entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant with a lease deposit of KRW 150 million, monthly rent of KRW 18.5 million, and the lease term of KRW 18.5 million from June 11, 201, which is one year from June 11, 2011. As the special terms of the said lease agreement, the total lease term was to be guaranteed at least for five years from the date of the first contract including the contract term of this case ( June 10, 2009).

No. 1-2 and No. 16 (Lease Agreement). After that, the above lease agreement was explicitly renewed, and on May 31, 2013, the last lease agreement between the opposite party and the defendant is below No. 1-3.