1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) Indication 8, .. of the attached Form No. 1 floor of the real estate listed in the attached list.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2013, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant the portion of 26 square meters inboard connected with each point of 8,9,14,15, and 8 in the attached Form No. 8 of the real estate on the first floor listed in the attached Table No. 1 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 500,000 per month (including value-added tax), and the period from September 25, 2013 to September 24, 2015, and thereafter, on December 23, 2014, the Plaintiff changed the lease deposit amount of KRW 3.5 million per month to KRW 35 million per month, and the period to December 24, 2016.

B. From September 25, 2013, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building from September 25, 2013, and did not pay the vehicle after January 26, 2017.

C. On February 27, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the instant lease contract is terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and the Defendant was served around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the principal claim, since the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the Plaintiff’s termination notice on the grounds of overdue rent for at least two years, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, and return the rent or the unjust enrichment from January 26, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the instant building, calculated at the rate of KRW 350,000 per month.

3. The defendant is liable to pay 90,000 won and damages for delay equivalent to the director's expenses to the defendant. However, there is no evidence or legal ground to acknowledge that the plaintiff is liable to pay the director's expenses in relation to the lease contract in this case. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit is justified, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.