1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 30, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on KRW 50,000,000 for operating 101 (hereinafter “instant office”); and (b) paid KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant for a deposit under a two-year lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) from the date of the lease agreement with the Defendant.

Inasmuch as the instant lease agreement has expired on July 30, 2016, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the lessee of the instant lease agreement is not the Plaintiff.

In addition, the instant lease agreement has no rent for the first two years, and thereafter, D shall pay the Defendant a monthly fee of KRW 2,00,000,000, whichever is later, the unpaid rent shall be deducted.

2. Determination

A. The key issue of the instant lease is whether the party to the instant lease is a Plaintiff or a defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and as to this, we examine the issue.

B. In a case where an actor who executes a contract takes a juristic act in the name of another person, as to whom the actor and the other party are the party to the contract, the parties to the contract shall first determine the offender or the title holder as the party to the contract in accordance with the consistent intent, if the actor and the other party agree with each other. Where the intent of the actor and the other party are not in accord, the parties shall be determined by how the other party understand, among the actor and the nominal owner as the party to the contract, in accordance with the detailed circumstances before

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da3897 delivered on May 29, 2001, etc.). C.

According to Gap evidence No. 1, the tenant of this case is written as the plaintiff in the lease contract of this case.