1. As to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s KRW 59,832,00,00 and KRW 44,500,00 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant)’s assertion on February 24, 2017.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence 1-1-5 and Eul evidence 8-1-1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant under the name of the defendant, but the plaintiff actually occupied, used the leased object and paid it to the plaintiff. However, there is no dispute as to who is the party to the contract in this case, the plaintiff is a party to the contract. The plaintiff is a party to the contract in Busan City C (hereinafter "the land in this case").

(D), E, and Fdong buildings located in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant Ddong, E, and Fdong buildings”)

(4) The above assertion by the defendant is rejected, since the defendant argues that the contract is a fake contract prepared to submit it for tax purposes, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the fact only with the statement No. 5. Rather, according to the result of the inquiry inquiry inquiry into the Asan Tax Code by this court, it can be known that there is no lease contract separately submitted by the plaintiff for tax purposes.

(1) A lease object: A lease period of approximately 250 square meters among the buildings in this case: From September 1, 2012 to September 31, 2014: 10,000,000 won (a deposit of KRW 5,500,000 due to no monthly rent for September): A special agreement on monthly rent of KRW 4,500,000 (prepaid on January 1): A lease period of about 20% shall be additionally borne if the rent is overdue on five days: 50 square meters: From May 28, 2013 to May 28, 2015; a lease period of about 50 square meters from May 28, 2015; a lease period of KRW 1,10,000: a lease period of KRW 10,000 to May 10, 201; a lease period of KRW 30,010 to May 28, 2015; a lease period of KRW 10.