1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff): (a) KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant); and (b) from March 15, 2020 to April 24, 2020 to KRW 90.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Facts of recognition

On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the premise that the lease deposit amount is KRW 90 million with respect to the second floor of the land residential building C (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Defendant, and the period from February 5, 2018 to February 4, 2020 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the Plaintiff would not renew the instant lease agreement on December 21, 2019, while residing in the instant building by paying a deposit amount of KRW 90 million.

On February 6, 2020, the Plaintiff registered the instant building upon receiving an order to register the right to lease a house in relation to the instant building from the District Court, and on March 14, 2020, delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period on February 4, 2020, according to the facts of absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and determination of the purport of the entire argument as to the claim of main lawsuit, barring special circumstances.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a delayed amount of damages from March 15, 2020, after the plaintiff delivered the building of this case to the defendant.

As to this, at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant agreed to extend the lease term for the same period or to continue the lease until the Defendant claims subsequent lessee after the expiration of the lease term, instead of reducing the lease deposit from KRW 120 million to KRW 90 million.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff cannot be seen as claiming the return of the present lease deposit, it is alleged that the Plaintiff cannot claim the return of the present lease deposit. However, the lease contract of this case does not stipulate all the terms of the above agreement.