1. All the appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim filed by this court are dismissed.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant real estate, and C is the incidental of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is the person married with the Plaintiff’s wife.

B. C had a large amount of liability when operating Bopers Institute or Child Care Centers. Around 2014, a large amount of liability was increased to the extent that the liability is not met, and C also requested the Defendant, including the Plaintiff, to assist the Defendant.

Accordingly, around September 1, 2014, the defendant obtained full delegation from C of the authority on the issue of debt, etc. and made counter-party to the creditors.

C. On September 2014, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with respect to the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff, KRW 80,000,000, term of lease from August 25, 2014, and KRW 24 months from August 25, 2014, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On November 19, 2014, the Defendant obtained a fixed date on the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 3, 18, 19, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant without the Plaintiff’s delegation. Since the instant lease agreement has no validity, the Defendant shall deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has no obligation to return the lease deposit to the Defendant.

B. On August 10, 2014, the Defendant alleged that “A lease agreement was made between the Defendant and C with respect to the instant real estate, for which money is required, KRW 80,00,000,000, with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff and C with the money that the Defendant had previously lent as a deposit for lease, and the mother and child’s money would be reasonable when the Defendant would have received a loan from the bank, and the Defendant would be able to reside in the instant real estate to receive such guarantee.”

The defendant is therefore the defendant.