1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 60,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on September 30, 2015 at the same time.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. Facts of recognition 1) Defendant C and Defendant D are buildings listed in the separate sheet on November 25, 2008 (hereinafter “instant building”).

As to E, a lease agreement is concluded between E and the lease deposit of KRW 60 million, and the lease period of KRW 50 million from December 5, 2008 to December 4, 2010 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

A) Around that time, E had resided in the instant building on December 2, 2008, and completed the move-in report on December 2, 2008, and received the fixed date on December 4, 2008. 2) Thereafter, E completed the registration of creation of a neighboring agricultural cooperative with the mortgagee as the central agricultural cooperative with the maximum debt amount of the instant building on May 6, 2010, and the establishment of a mortgage on May 6, 2010.

(3) While the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed, Defendant C, Defendant D, and E paid KRW 5,00,000 to E on September 19, 2011 after the lease agreement was renewed by setting the lease term up until September 30, 2013, and the lease term was extended to E on September 30, 2015 after the renewed lease agreement was implicitly renewed and the lease term was extended until September 30, 2015, and Defendant B and Defendant C continue to reside in the instant building until the present date) Meanwhile, on April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff was awarded the said building in the procedure of auction of real estate rent, which was commenced upon the application of the central agricultural cooperative for the sale of real estate rent, and the sales price was fully paid on May 20, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants already concluded a lease agreement with E, the former owner of the instant building, prior to the registration of the establishment of the instant neighboring building, and have the opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, so the Defendants are the successful bidder of the instant building.