1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants confirm that the lease agreement listed in the separate sheet as of September 17, 2014 is valid.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant B’s wife, Defendant C, and D are children of the network E.

B. On the ground of Sejong Special Self-Governing City, the net E owned each of the following buildings (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant buildings”) on the ground of Sejong Special Self-Governing City and died on July 2014.

The area of the structural use of each floor (land size) shall be 60 weeks in the length of 1st floor of 1st floor, the steel pipe compost of 350 weeks, the 5th floor 5th floor of 1,470 square meters, the steel pipe of 1,470 square meters, the steel pipe of 1,470 square meters, the 60th 1, the steel pipe of 60th 1, the steel pipe of 392, the steel pipe of 392, the steel pipe of 1,365 Jeju, the steel pipe of 8th 5th 20, the steel pipe of 71.5

C. On September 17, 2014, the Plaintiff appears to have commenced the lease term from October 1, 2014, when the lease deposit amount was KRW 50,00,000, monthly rent KRW 4,500,000, and the payment date of the deposit for the five-year lease term, as shown in the attached list, with Defendant D as to the instant double fraternity as to the instant double fraternity through her husband G.

personal lease contract was concluded.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 4-1 through 5, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendants, the heir of the Plaintiff’s assertion E, agreed upon the conclusion of the instant lease agreement on August 18, 2014.

On September 17, 2014, based on the oral contract with the Defendants, the Plaintiff drafted the instant lease agreement with Defendant D, and thus, the instant lease agreement is valid.

Even if Defendant B did not consent to the instant lease agreement, the instant lease agreement is valid, since the total inheritance shares (4/7) of Defendant C and D pertaining to the two-generations of this case exceed a majority.

B. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendants, as co-inheritors of the network E, acquire ownership of Defendant B’s 3/7 shares, Defendant C, and D’s shares in each of 2/7 shares.

The Defendants (in particular, Defendant B) made an oral agreement with the instant lease agreement on August 18, 2014, and Nos. 1 through 1.