1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) that exceeds the following amount ordered to pay.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 1, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease and lease a building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 210,000 (excluding value-added tax, prepaid payment), and the period from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Around May 2017, the Defendant expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of business difficulties, and removed all factory equipment, etc. from the instant building around July 12, 2017, and removed the signboards posted on the instant building around July 22, 2017.

C. The sum of the rents unpaid by the Defendant, which occurred until July 22, 2017, is KRW 3.5 million.

On August 14, 2017, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate-certified mail stating that “the vehicle in arrears was deducted from the deposit under the instant lease agreement and did not remain. The Plaintiff, who did not secure the vehicle, demanded the Defendant to leave the instant building, and accordingly the Defendant removed from the instant building.”

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 5.6 million for the unpaid rent under the instant lease agreement (i.e., the sum of the unpaid rent by July 22, 2017, KRW 3.5 million, which was KRW 2.1 million) and the delay damages therefor. (ii) The Defendant delayed to pay the rent due to the business shortage. As the Defendant did not remain after deducting the overdue deposit from the overdue deposit under the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to terminate the instant lease agreement and leave the instant building as soon as possible.

Accordingly, the defendant on 2017.