1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. At the same time, the Plaintiff received KRW 40,000,000 from the Plaintiff and at the same time within Gangnam-gu Seoul.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 2, 2012, the council of occupants' representatives of Gangnam-gu Seoul Gangnam-gu, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with D Co., Ltd., the representative director of which is the above apartment complex, and with respect to the size of 398.15 square meters (hereinafter “instant childcare center building”) in sequence of each point of C’s attached drawings No. 5 attached to the above apartment complex, b, c, Ra, f, f, g, g, g, car, k, l, and Ga. The main contents of the lease agreement are as shown in the attached lease agreement.

B. Since then, according to the instant lease agreement, the non-party company paid a lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and operated a child care center (hereinafter “child care center of this case”) by receiving delivery of the building of the child care center of this case from the Plaintiff. When entering into the said lease agreement, the Defendant worked as the principal of the child care center of this case at the time of entering into the said lease agreement, but was taking over and operated the said child care center on December 18,

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts that the lessee of the above lease agreement is the non-party company and the Defendant was the representative of the non-party company or the above child care center. However, the Defendant asserted that the lessee of the lease agreement in this case was the lessee before the lawsuit in this case was brought, and filed a lawsuit on the merits of the contract. The Defendant also used the expressions such as “the Defendant,” “the lessee,” “lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,” “lease contract between the Plaintiff,” and “recontract with the Defendant,” etc. in this case, on the premise that the Defendant is the lessee, and used the expressions such as “the lessee,” “the lessee,” “a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant,” and the Defendant’s assertion as to implied renewal of the contract in this case, violation of the principle of good faith, premium, beneficial cost, unjust enrichment, etc. as follows before the final argument in this