1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) ordered the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to order the building indicated in the attached Form.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

1. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole pleadings as to the claim of the principal lawsuit, the plaintiff set the building attached to the defendant on October 15, 2007 (hereinafter the "the building of this case") and its site as the purpose of use, "local specialized business" and "the lease period" and "the lease period of the building of this case from October 15, 2007 to October 14, 2012" and "the lease contract of this case" to the defendant.

A. The fact that the Defendant concluded the instant loan agreement with the Plaintiff on October 2010 that the loan term expires without paying the loan fee to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff terminated the instant loan agreement with the Defendant on October 23, 2012 on the grounds of the overdue loan and the expiration of the loan period, and notified the Defendant of the refund of the instant building.

According to the above facts, since the loan contract of this case was terminated on October 14, 2012 due to the expiration of the loan period, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to suspend the building of this case upon the termination of the loan contract.

The defendant asserts that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until he is paid damages due to the defect of the building of this case. However, for the above reasons, he cannot block the plaintiff's claim seeking the name map according to the termination of the loan contract. Thus, the defendant's claim is without merit.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant's assertion ① (a) although there were defects in the building of this case, the plaintiff deceivings the defendant and caused the plaintiff to enter into the instant loan agreement; (b) the defendant's work was damaged due to the leakage of the building of this case, and KRW 200,000,000, out of KRW 390,000,000, which was 100,000,000, which was 390,000, which was 100,000,000, which was 390,000, which was 30,000,000,000, which was 20,000,000, which was 334,128,128.