The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) was returned KRW 60,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A. On August 27, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) on August 27, 2007, KRW 50,000,000 for lease deposit; and (b) monthly rent of KRW 4,400,00 for the second floor among the buildings listed in the attached list to Defendant A (hereinafter “instant store”); and (c) the Plaintiff’s lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000 for the attached list (excluding value-added tax;

(2) The Defendant A entered into a lease agreement and subsequently renewed the said agreement several times, and finally, on September 27, 2015, the lease deposit was KRW 60,000,000 for lease deposit, KRW 6,000 for monthly rent (payment date: 26,00,000 for monthly rent) and the lease term was renewed from September 27, 2015 to September 26, 2016. (2) The Defendant A received delivery of the instant store under the said lease agreement and continued to operate the mutual recognition of “C” together with the Defendant B.

3) On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of his/her intention to refuse the renewal of the above lease agreement. [The Plaintiff’s intent to refuse the renewal of the lease agreement is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition; (b) the entries in Gap’

B. According to the fact that the lease contract was terminated, the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse to renew the lease contract of this case to the Defendant on June 13, 2016. Thus, the lease contract of this case is terminated on September 26, 2016, which is the expiration date. Accordingly, the Defendants asserted that, after the Plaintiff’s notice of refusal to renew the lease contract, the Plaintiff again agreed to extend the lease term to five years on the condition that the lease deposit would be increased to 20,000,000 won. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the expiration date of the lease contract of this case, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendants asserted to the effect that they cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition until the Plaintiff was returned KRW 60,000,000 from the Plaintiff. As such, inasmuch as the lessee’s obligation to deliver the leased object and the lessor’s obligation to return the leased object upon the expiration of the lease contract relationship, the lessee is the lessee.