1. From January 17, 2015 to May 13, 2015, Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) filed a claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) for KRW 5 million and its payment.

1. Basic facts

A. In around 1989, the Plaintiff leased the part (A) of 25 square meters in the ship (hereinafter “instant real estate”) connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached Form Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 among the real property listed in the attached Table No. C owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and prepared each lease agreement as follows:

(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”). ① August 3, 1989: 10 square meters of building 10: deposit 25 million won, monthly rent 1.3 million won, period 12 months, and contract for the merger of D companies and pharmacies with D companies as of May 23, 1993; 2.0 million won of the first floor, deposit 25 million won, monthly rent 200,000 won, monthly rent 12 months, premium in principle, shall be restored to its original state without recognizing all of the premium of this case.

(3) As of June 25, 1996: It is not necessary to recognize the amount of KRW 10,000,000 monthly rent of KRW 40,000,000 for the first floor, monthly rent of KRW 400,00,00 for the period, 12 months, principle of restoration, premium for a premium

B. In around 199, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the rent of this case into KRW 2.5 million per month.

C. On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20 million to the Defendant under the title of the instant lease deposit with the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu, 2014, which was gold No. 686.

[Reasons for Recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant's evidence defense to the effect that Gap evidence No. 2 was forged, and Eul's evidence No. 2 is proved to have been affixed to the contract, and the defendant's seal affixed on Gap evidence No. 2 is deemed to have the same as the defendant's seal affixed on Eul evidence No. 1. 2. Thus, since the defendant's seal affixed on Gap evidence No. 2 is recognized as being by the defendant's seal, it is presumed that the whole evidence No. 2 is established, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above presumption, the defendant's above evidence defense has no merit.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant agreed on the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant on June 2014.