1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is entitled to 6,699,437 won against the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. The fact of recognition common to the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim;

A. The Plaintiff is the lessee who leased the instant store from the Dong-dong Co., Ltd., the owner of the instant store.

B. The Defendant is the former lessee who borrowed the instant store from the Plaintiff.

The main contents of the sub-lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “sub-lease contract of this case”) are as follows:

1. A sublease deposit: A monthly rent of 15 million won: 1.4 million won (excluding management expenses) and a sublease period of 1.4 million won: June 7, 2012 to June 7, 2014 (24 months);

C. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a notice to the Defendant that the instant sub-lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of not less than two years of arrears (hereinafter “instant termination notice”), and the said notice reached the Defendant at the business end.

After the notice of termination of the instant case on March 30, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received de facto steel at the instant store; and (b) suspended its use; (c) however, the Defendant did not complete delivery because the instant store lockeds locks on the steel stack, and parts of the goods remain inside the store.

E. Afterward, the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff on March 2015.

F. At the time of March 30, 2014, the monthly rent in arrears of the Defendant was KRW 6,083,870, and the management fee was KRW 2,216,693, and the management fee was KRW 2,216,693.

(g) [i.e., the sum of the overdue rent and management expenses (i.e., the sum of the overdue rent and management expenses (i.e., KRW 6,083,870, KRW 216,693)) at the time of the above date. The Plaintiff did not actually provide the implementation thereof until the date of the conclusion of the pleadings in this case regarding the Defendant’s claim for the refund of the sublease deposit.

【Unsatisfy-founded facts, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5-1, 5-2, Eul 2, 5-1 through 5-10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The benefit in return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the benefit was obtained without any legal ground in the relevant legal doctrine refers to the substantial benefit, and the lessee is in a lease contract relationship.