1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) Of the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3, the separate sheet Nos. 2.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff leased 30,000 square meters in part (A) and 30,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”) connected to the Defendant in sequence of the respective points indicated in Attached Table 2 Map 3, 4, 5, 6, and 3 among the real estate listed in Attached Table 1 List to the Defendant for three months without a deposit for lease.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Even after the lapse of three months, the Plaintiff continuously leased the instant house to the Defendant under the same conditions by implied agreement, and the Defendant was in arrears from around 2013 to several times.

On September 2, 2016, the Defendant drafted a letter of commitment to the Plaintiff that “In the event that the Defendant did not pay rent (including a three-month rental fee) for the instant house by October 31, 2016, the Defendant would return the instant house to the Plaintiff, and as to this, the Plaintiff would have promised not to raise an objection even during the course of a suit for surrendering the name of the Plaintiff.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as to the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits, the Plaintiff agreed to withdraw the lawsuit if the Plaintiff paid the remainder KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff, out of the rent of KRW 1,100,000 among the rent of KRW 3 months sealed up to three months until January 31, 2017 and KRW 5,550,000,000 for the rent of KRW 5,000,00,000 for January 31, 2017.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement as alleged by the Defendant, and even if there was such an agreement, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant fulfilled the content of the agreement.

(B) The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,100,000,000 to the Plaintiff, respectively, on December 30, 2016 and December 31, 2016, respectively, on the basis of the specification of transactions attached to the Defendant’s Answer. Therefore, the Defendant’s prior defense on the merits is without merit.

3. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the merits is the monthly rent of the Defendant.