2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with KRW 20 million.

A counterclaim cannot be filed after the closing of argument in the merits. Since it is apparent that the Defendant filed a counterclaim after the date of closing of argument in the merits, it is unlawful because it fails to meet the requirements for filing a counterclaim.

In addition, the text of the judgment must be clear and the contents of the judgment must be specified as the text itself. Thus, the order must be clearly specified to the extent that it is clearly indicated and its execution should be clearly stated to the extent that it can be inferred from the grounds and comparisons with those of the parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da60239, Mar. 9, 2006; 88Meu18597, Jul. 11, 1989). The purport of the counterclaim refers to the main text of the judgment claimed by the defendant as a counterclaim in the lawsuit in question, and accordingly, it is indicated that the defendant seeks a judgment for which order is sought by the defendant. Therefore, the contents and scope of the counterclaim must be clearly and clearly specified.

However, the purport of the Defendant’s counterclaim alone cannot be seen as clearly specifying the content and scope of the Defendant’s counterclaim to the Plaintiff, and there is no doubt about its enforcement.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. On April 14, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) on April 14, 2014, he/she owned by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is a 3627m2.1m2 (hereinafter “instant road”).

(2) Around January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the rent by KRW 20 million between the Defendant and KRW 300,000,000 from January 14, 2015.

B. Since the instant lease contract was terminated upon the expiration of the period of validity, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's counterclaim is illegal.