1. The part on which the delivery of the building is sought from the principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be dismissed.

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

(The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined)

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2015, the Plaintiff leased approximately KRW 60,000,000 “A” (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) among the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, to the Defendant on the 15th day of each month, the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 1,50,000 from February 7, 2015 to February 6, 2017, and around that time, the Defendant paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement include the following: (a) exemption from rent for a period of about four months from February 7, 2015 to June 6, 2015, which begins with the term of lease; and (b) the period during which the Defendant first is liable to pay rent to the Plaintiff, as July 15, 2015 (referring to rent from June 7, 2015 to July 6, 2015).

C. The Defendant did not pay any rent to the Plaintiff even after July 15, 2015.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for extradition of the instant commercial building among the main stations

A. The main point of this part of the party's assertion is that the plaintiff lawfully terminated the lease contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's vehicle body, and thus, the plaintiff sought the delivery of the commercial building of this case, and the defendant asserts that the plaintiff had already delivered the commercial building

At least before the date of closing argument of this case, the fact that the defendant delivered the commercial building of this case to the plaintiff is no dispute between the parties. As the plaintiff who was delivered the commercial building of this case, it is no longer necessary to maintain the lawsuit seeking the delivery of the commercial building, and the defendant who claimed that the delivery of the commercial building was already made has lost the benefit of dispute as to the claim

As such, the part of the claim for the delivery of the building among the main office of this case.