1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. From October 15, 2012, the above real estate.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2, the Plaintiff paid real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) on May 31, 2012 as KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 180,000 (excluding value-added tax; the Defendant, without relation to the statement that “value-added tax separate” in subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff’s business registration cannot be cancelled and issued a tax invoice; thus, the Defendant, without value-added tax, argued that the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 180,000 per month without value-added tax but there is no evidence to acknowledge this agreement); the period of lease from July 15, 2012 to July 14, 2014; the Defendant paid KRW 18,000,000 until October 21, 2013; and the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant’s lease contract was terminated by 150,000 won to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff but the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff is not obligated to deliver the instant store and pay rent. According to the evidence No. 1, the fact that the ownership transfer registration on the instant store was completed on May 8, 2008 due to the trust can be acknowledged. However, according to the evidence No. 3, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff and Crocco agreed to perform the actual management activities, such as possession, use, maintenance, repair, etc. while concluding a real estate security trust contract on the instant store, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the instant store.