1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1.The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in combination with the purpose of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and Eul evidence No. 2:

1) The Defendant was married with C around 1975, but the agreement was reached on November 10, 1993. However, from July 2006, the de facto marriage relationship between the Defendant and C was terminated on or around May 2013, and C filed a lawsuit claiming a division of property against the Defendant on August 16, 2013 (Seoul Family Court Decision 2013Du199). 2) The Plaintiff is a father between the Defendant and C.

B. 1) The Defendant’s father D around March 2012, with respect to the possession of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”) is part of the Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu E, 199 square meters, F 22.4 square meters, and its ground buildings (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

A) From the point of view, the fireworks were operated. Accordingly, C around that time the fireworks were operated in the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant fireworks”).

2) Upon running the instant fireworks, C entered into a business registration order in order to pay cards, etc., and around May 2012, C entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant with the term “leased G, lessee, and lessee from May 10, 2012 to May 9, 2014, and KRW 10 million from May 10, 2014, and KRW 550,000,000 per month of rent,” and completed the registration of the instant fireworks in the name of the Plaintiff.

3) Meanwhile, from July 24, 2013 to June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 18,700,000 to the Defendant under the name of rent pursuant to the instant lease agreement. (C) D died on June 12, 2012, and one of the co-inheritors, as D’s children, filed a lawsuit against C seeking delivery of the instant real estate (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap8206).

hereinafter referred to as “the previous lawsuit of this case”).