On June 15, 2011, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 65,850,000 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 10,00,000 among them.

With respect to a principal claim and a counterclaim, it shall be deemed together.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff is the council of occupants' representatives of A apartment complex located in Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (14 Dong Dong 561 households, hereinafter "the apartment complex of this case"), and the defendant is the person selected as the operator of the child care facilities in the apartment complex of this case (hereinafter "child care center of this case") in the bidding procedure conducted by the plaintiff.

The child care center of this case is a facility with business permission on March 27, 2005. The plaintiff was obligated to establish a nursery facility with 30 or more infants on a regular basis pursuant to Article 5 (4) of the former Regulations on Standards, etc. for Housing Construction (amended by Presidential Decree No. 18929, Jun. 30, 2005). Although not explicitly stated in the following lease agreement, the lease agreement of this case was concluded on the premise that at least 30 infants are operated by the child care center of this case in full view of the parties' arguments, all evidence, and the purport of the argument.

On July 5, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the child care center of this case, the operating deposit of KRW 10,000,000, and monthly rent of KRW 500,000. On January 17, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the child care center of this case and the center for senior citizens in the apartment complex of this case (hereinafter “instant center for senior citizens”), the operating deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000 (if the instant center for senior citizens is used as a nursery facility, KRW 1,00,000).

(2) The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties to the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s main claim and the Defendant’s counterclaim are as follows: (a) the lease of the first lease of the instant case on July 5, 201 and the second lease of the instant case on January 17, 2012; and (b) the “second lease of the instant case” collectively referred to as “the instant lease”); and (c) there is no dispute as to the grounds for recognition; (d) the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the main claim and the purport of the entire pleadings; and (e) the first lease and the second lease contract of the instant case.