1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 350,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its payment from May 29, 2015 to January 22, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2008, the Defendant leased the 163.6 square meters of store of 163.6 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”) among ASEAN and E-ground buildings to a non-resident corporation (hereinafter “existing lessee”) for a fixed term of three years. On February 9, 2011, the Defendant renewed the said contract and extended the term of lease to July 30, 2014.

B. On May 10, 2014, the Defendant leased the instant commercial building to the Plaintiffs at KRW 300,000,000, deposit money, KRW 700,000 per month, and KRW 7,00,000 per month of rent (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) for ten years from August 1, 2014, and all of the aforementioned deposit amount was paid by the Plaintiffs.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant refused to renew the lease agreement concluded with the existing lessee on May 16, 2014, but the existing lessee refused to deliver the instant commercial building.

Accordingly, on September 19, 2014, the Defendant applied for a provisional disposition seeking the transfer of the commercial building of this case against the existing lessee (this court 2014Kahap91) (hereinafter referred to as the “instant application”) on October 15, 2014.

On October 21, 2014, the Defendant applied for compulsory execution against the existing lessee on the ground of the foregoing provisional disposition order, but the F, who concluded a franchise agreement with the existing lessee and operated convenience stores in the instant commercial building, filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant on October 28, 2014 (this Court Decision 2014Da110347). The said compulsory execution was suspended.

E. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a provisional disposition claiming the delivery of the instant commercial building against F (this Court Decision 2014Kahap10057). However, this Court dismissed the said application.

On the other hand, on April 21, 2015, this Court rendered a ruling of dismissal of the suit against the third party, and the above ruling became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 3 and 4 include the number, below.