1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s appeal are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third to 16th parallels are as follows.

"The following facts" do not conflict between the parties, or Gap evidence 2-2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and Eul evidence 6 (a lease contract and the defendant's agent revoked at the third date for pleading of the first instance court, but there is no evidence to prove that the above establishment recognition was contrary to the truth and due to mistake, and rather, considering the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence No. 9, Eul evidence No. 17, and Eul evidence No. 17, the defendant filed a complaint for G on the ground that the plaintiff's employee G was forged of the above lease contract, but the defendant was subject to a disposition of non-guilty on May 19, 2016, and therefore, the above revocation is not effective), Gap evidence No. 7, Eul evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 7, and Eul evidence No. 7, and the whole purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged by considering the whole purport of all the arguments and arguments.

On August 201, the Plaintiff: (a) around August 1, 201, leased each of the buildings indicated in the 3,000 square meters and orders of the 6,168 square meters for the Defendant Company for the storage of construction materials and storage; (b) the rent of KRW 2,219,820 for the year 201 without a lease deposit (the rent shall be calculated pursuant to Article 57 of the Construction Property Management Regulations); and (c) the period from August 10, 201 to December 31, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant first lease contract”). (b)

Even after the expiration of the period under the above lease agreement, the Defendant Company requested that the Plaintiff extend the lease agreement to the Plaintiff while occupying each of the above real estate. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company, around June 1, 2014, filed a request with the Defendant Company for an extension of the lease agreement. From January 1, 2014 to June 30, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company are 1,372 square meters and each of the real estate indicated in the order (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”).