1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant with a floor of 107.52 square meters and a second floor of 109.52 square meters among the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2014, the Plaintiff, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) as co-owners of the instant building indicated in the instant lease agreement and the attached list for payment of deposit for lease deposit, and the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement with respect to the size of 107.52 square meters and 109.88 square meters of the first floor among the instant buildings, as follows.

(1) Rental deposit: 45 million won, monthly rent: 3 million won (2) lease period: (3) special agreement from September 10, 2014 to September 10, 2015: "The items of the special agreement are as follows: Additional tax for convenience (hereinafter referred to as "value-added tax for convenience") : The said contents are deleted and indicated in the monthly rent." [The contract shall be included in the monthly rent, stating that "the additional tax is included in the monthly rent," and the Plaintiff’s seal is affixed on the bottom of the contract and signed by the Defendant];

B. (1) Notice of rejection of renewal, etc. (1) The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and there was a dispute over the increase of rent around August 2017 (the Plaintiff’s initial rent does not include the value added tax, and the Defendant was the position that the rent should be increased based on KRW 3 million, while the Defendant included the value added tax, which should be based on KRW 2.7 million). On August 9, 2017, the Plaintiff, the representative of the lessor, sent notice to the Defendant on August 9, 2017 to the effect that he would refuse renewal of the lease if he did not accept it within seven days.

(2) The Defendant paid a lease deposit and continued to conduct business with G as its trade name, even after obtaining the certification of the above content, and paid KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff as the next appointment at the time of the closing of the argument in the instant case.

C. On September 15, 2017, the Plaintiff, such as the instant provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession, is the right to avoid the termination of the instant lease agreement and the right to request the delivery of a building based on ownership as the court’s 2017Kadan812411.