1. The obligation under the lease agreement concluded on July 1, 2016 by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is set forth in the following Section 2.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. Although the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that a lease contract was concluded with the Defendant, the actual lessee was a lessee, and the Plaintiff was only lent with the name of the lessee, and the Defendant, the lessor, knowing the fact well, agreed not to bear the obligation of the lessee, so the lease contract with the Defendant is null and void as it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, and the Plaintiff does not bear the obligation

B. In light of the overall purport of the pleadings in the testimony of the witnesses and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, and 4, C: (a) was previously occupied, used, and the Plaintiff was introduced to the Defendant as the lessee of the instant warehouse; (b) on July 1, 2016 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Plaintiff prescribed the lease deposit amount of five million won; and (c) from July 4, 2016 to July 3, 2017, a lease agreement was made by the Defendant to rent the instant warehouse as one million won (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”); and (d) at the time of the time of the formation of the lease agreement, C was also at the site of the instant lease agreement; and (c) the Plaintiff appears to have been subject to punishment for the Plaintiff’s use of the instant warehouse under the name of the Plaintiff, such as the instant warehouse, on the grounds that it appears that the Plaintiff had been subject to the Defendant’s use of the instant warehouse under the name of the Plaintiff.