1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount exceeds the amount ordered to be paid.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 18, 2004, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant a deposit of KRW 3 million, monthly rent of KRW 3,50,000 (payment on September 18, 2004), and from September 18, 2004, the period of lease of KRW 3,000,000 (payment on September 18, 2004) for the second floor D & 45.36 square meters (hereinafter “instant house”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On September 18, 2004, the Plaintiff paid one million won out of the lease deposit to the Defendant and resided in the instant house transferred from the Defendant. Since then, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed.

C. On August 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement and delivered the instant housing around November 2016.

Meanwhile, from October 2004 to October 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 52,038,000 to the Defendant under the pretext of KRW 2 million and rent.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, Eul evidence No. 6 (including Serials), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement and delivered the instant house, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 3 million and the damages for delay.

B. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the unpaid rent and management fee of KRW 2,661,90 (i.e., the unpaid water rate of KRW 2,58,000,000). As such, the amount should be deducted from the deposit that the Defendant is to pay to the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s principal claim, or the Plaintiff should pay the said amount to the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease was implicitly renewed, and the Plaintiff terminated at the end of November, 2016 and delivered the instant house to the Defendant around that time, when three months elapsed since the Plaintiff notified the termination.