1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) amounting to KRW 20,000,000 and this amount.

1. Ex officio determination on the legitimacy of the counterclaim of this case is made on the lawfulness of the counterclaim of this case.

The defendant asserts that the remaining lease deposit to be returned to the plaintiff due to the termination of the lease relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is KRW 18,700,000, and the plaintiff also has the obligation to register cancellation of the house lease registration completed with respect to the building listed in the attached list due to the termination of the above lease relationship. The defendant's obligation to return the remaining lease deposit of the defendant and the plaintiff's obligation to cancel the above house lease registration of the plaintiff is related to the simultaneous performance, and thus, the plaintiff seeks cancellation of the above

The registration of a right of lease on the execution of a right of lease on the basis of a right of lease registration is not possible for a lessee or a lessor to file an application directly with the competent court (Article 3-3(3)4 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Article 293 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 3-3(7) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, Article 5 of the Rules on the Procedure for the Right of Lease Registration). If the registration of a right of lease is made on the commission of the court, if the registration of a right of lease, for which the party is unable to file an application, is made on the commission of the court, the registration of cancellation shall also be made on the commission of the court. In this case, there is no

Meanwhile, the defendant asserts that the counterclaim in this case is legitimate in the interest of lawsuit, while the proviso of Article 288 (2) of the Civil Execution Act is stipulated, but Article 3-3 (3) 3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act only applies mutatis mutandis the provisions of the main sentence of Article 288 (2) of the Civil Execution Act, and the provisions of the proviso of Article 288 (2) of the Civil Execution Act pointing out by the defendant do not apply mutatis mutandis. In addition, the above proviso is merely a court having jurisdiction over the judgment on the application for