1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning a counterclaim, including a claim for counterclaim changed by this court, is as follows.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the underlying facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (from 2: 4: the third to 4 pages). Thus, this part of the reasoning is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. This part of the Plaintiff’s assertion in the court regarding the claim for principal lawsuit is not significantly different from that in the first instance trial.

As shown in the plaintiff's argument, E's testimony is difficult to believe and there is no other new evidence in light of the attitude of statement and each description of evidence Nos. 2 and 26.

The reasoning of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

(a) The following facts may be admitted by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the evidence and evidence set forth in Gap evidence and evidence set forth in Gap evidence and set forth in Eul evidence set forth in the preceding 9, Eul 4, 17 to 25 (including a Serial number):

1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between May 15, 2018 to May 14, 2019 with respect to the instant store, with the Plaintiff’s entrusted operation from May 15, 2018 to the end of the entrusted operation, to find the assignee of the instant store, and the amount of the transfer was determined by KRW 300 million (including KRW 100 million as lease deposit). However, the Plaintiff did not make any effort to find the assignee of the instant store until the end of the entrusted operation. 2) As of October 14, 2016 for the instant store operation, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and C, with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Form, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 100 million, KRW 4400,000,000,000,000 for monthly rent, and from October 14, 2016 to October 14, 2016.

The agreement of this case contains the agreement that the Plaintiff agrees to bear all expenses, such as monthly rent for the store of this case from May 15, 2018 to the end of the entrusted operation.

However, the Plaintiff.