1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 686,878 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from February 10, 2018 to July 12, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) from the Defendant on October 11, 2016, the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million; (b) the rent of KRW 2.2 million from July 5, 2017, KRW 2.2 million from the rent of KRW 30 million; and (c) the rent of KRW 2.2 million from July 5, 2017.

(zb) value-added tax;

(B) On October 15, 2016 through October 14, 2018, the lease agreement term was set and leased, and thereafter, a coffee shop was operated in the instant commercial building. (b) On February 3, 2018, the singingler installed in the ceiling of the instant commercial building was set up in the commercial building, and water has been accumulated in the commercial building, and the number of water has occurred on the singler on the 8th of the same month, and on the 9th of the same month, there was an accident that fire-fighting numbers have been set up in the vicinity of the commercial entrance (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(c) On February 14, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact of leakage, and demanded remuneration, but the Defendant, on February 28, 2018, asserted that “Singler’s accident caused by the soft wave is not the Defendant, but the management body and the controlled entity of the building including the instant shopping district, and the amount of damages claimed by the Plaintiff is excessive, and the Plaintiff does not operate a business even if it is possible.” D. Meanwhile, on May 5, 2018, the Plaintiff paid KRW 220,00 each month to the Defendant for the rent of May 5, 2018, but did not pay the rent thereafter. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, including the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay the rent to the Defendant, evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, 13 through 16, and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (a number number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply).

as a result of the fact-finding inquiry with respect to each entry and video of the corporation, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. As to the plaintiff's main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 that the head of the instant shopping mall was destroyed by a sprink installed in the instant shopping mall. The Defendant is a lessor under a lease agreement, who is responsible for nonperformance of the repair obligation, or the owner of the instant shopping mall, including a sprinkler, and is liable for damages due to a defect in the installation and preservation of structures.