1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. June 15, 2018

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 15, 2018, the Plaintiff, as the manager of the instant officetel, entered into a lease agreement with C to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant officetel”) with the head of the office of management of the instant officetel, with a view to setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 35,00,000, and the lease term of KRW 24 months from June 15, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”).

B. On April 30, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30,000,000, and KRW 35,000,000, in total, on May 28, 2018, as the deposit money under the instant lease contract, into the account of community credit cooperatives under the name of D Steering Committee.

C. From June 15, 2018, the Plaintiff occupied and used the instant officetel from around June 15, 201 to the present date.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) delegated or delegated the authority to conclude the instant lease contract to C at least. The Plaintiff is obligated to return KRW 35,00,000 to C as a lessor of the instant lease contract pursuant to the provisions of delegation by proxy or by proxy beyond the authority under Article 126 of the Civil Act, since the Plaintiff has justifiable grounds to believe that C has the authority to conclude the instant lease contract. Nevertheless, the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to transfer the instant officetel on the ground of unauthorized occupation. Nevertheless, the Defendant cannot expect the Defendant to voluntarily perform the obligation to return the lease deposit, and thus, the Defendant is primarily seeking to pay KRW 35,00,000 upon the expiration of the renewed lease term against the Defendant on June 14, 2020. 2) Even if the Defendant is not deemed liable for acting as acting as an agent or expressive agent, the Defendant and the instant office managing the instant officetel’s employees.