1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from KRW 70,00,000 to KRW 70,000, respectively, written in the separate sheet from June 1, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 20, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 to the Defendant as the deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,500,000, and the contract term from September 20, 2010 to September 20, 2015. Around July 2012, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 to the Defendant as the deposit amount of KRW 30,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, monthly rent of KRW 300,000, contract term of KRW 300,000, and from July 3, 2012 to October 30, 2015.

(hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”). (b)

On September 2015 and October 2015, prior to the expiration of each of the instant lease agreements, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The Plaintiff will not renew the instant lease agreement, and upon expiration of the contract period, deliver each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant notification”).

C. The Defendant paid all rents up to May 2016, and thereafter occupied and used each real estate listed in the separate sheet without paying rent.

Each of the instant lease agreements is not subject to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts found above as to the cause of the claim, since each of the instant lease agreements terminated at the expiration of the period, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the Defendant’s defense of extension of the period, the Defendant asserted to the effect that “Around September 2013, the Plaintiff continued to use each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet even after the termination of each of the instant lease agreements,” but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above assertion is not accepted.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 2, the defendant received the notification of this case from the plaintiff around September 2015.