1. The Defendant points out each of the following subparagraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1, among the buildings listed in the attached list, to the Plaintiff:

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including paper numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 12, the plaintiff transferred the building of this case to the defendant on July 10, 2014, the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 850,000 (payment on October 10, 201), and the lease term of KRW 10,000 from July 10, 2014 to July 9, 2016 (hereinafter "the lease contract of this case"), and the defendant transferred the building of this case to the plaintiff and used it from Sep. 10, 2014, and notified the plaintiff of the termination of the lease contract of this case to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was liable to return the lease deposit of this case to the non-party No. 2, the defendant, on the ground that the above termination of the lease contract of this case was terminated.

Since the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case was already transferred, the claim for offsetting against the plaintiff's overdue rent and the claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the defendant shall not be determined.

Although the Defendant asserted that the lessor of the above lease agreement was D, considering the above evidence and the entries in the evidence No. 3 as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant continued to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit and the rent. In particular, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the right to return the lease deposit, as seen earlier, and D, on September 12, 2014.