1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is from 50,000,000 to 50,000 won from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) on the attached list from October 1, 2018.

1. As to the claim on the main claim, the Defendant leased the building indicated in the Disposition No. C (the instant store) from August 1, 2001 to operated cosmetic shop. The Plaintiff succeeded to the building listed in the separate sheet in 2013, and on September 14, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a new lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant as to the instant store by September 30, 201 (excluding value-added tax) with a deposit deposit of KRW 50 million,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,100,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the lease term of KRW 2,10,00,000 for September 30, 2016, and the lease term of which was renewed by September 30, 2017, there is no dispute between the parties.

As the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease on or around August 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the term of lease expired on September 30, 2017, but it does not accept the said assertion inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

On July 2017, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant to increase the monthly rent of KRW 2,300,000 (value added tax) in accordance with Article 11 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act). The Defendant refused to pay increased rent and deposited the rent of KRW 2,30,000 (value-added tax separately) unilaterally from April 2018.

However, in light of the developments leading up to the conclusion and renewal of the instant lease agreement, it cannot be deemed that the existing car is significantly unfair solely on the grounds of price increase, etc. asserted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (the Plaintiff’s demand for increase exceeds 5/100 as stipulated in the Enforcement Decree of the Commercial Building Lease Act), and the said assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed until September 30, 2018, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement (A 5) on or around June 14, 2018, and the notification should be deemed to include the purport of refusal of renewal. Therefore, the instant lease agreement was terminated on or after September 30, 2018.

Therefore, the defendant, from the plaintiff, 50.