1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Facts of recognition

A. On June 11, 2010, the Defendant leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) from Song-gu Co., Ltd., and thereafter renewed the lease agreement on a yearly basis by operating the pharmacy with the trade name “C pharmacy” in the said building from around that time.

Finally, on June 30, 2016, the Defendant concluded a lease contract prescribed by the term from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017, with respect to the building in this case, KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 845,00 (excluding value-added tax), and the term of lease from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On November 24, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from the Song-gu Co., Ltd. on November 24, 201 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said building on January 24, 2017.

C. On March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that “the Plaintiff succeeding to the lessor’s status shall notify the Defendant of the scheduled termination of the instant lease agreement on June 30, 2017, which is the expiration date of the lease, with the content of the said certificate.”

On the other hand, the defendant continues to operate the C Pharmacy in the building of this case until now.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and judgment as to the claim of principal lawsuit as a whole

A. On June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) concluded the instant lease agreement. As such, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff, and return KRW 84,500, value-added tax of KRW 845,500, monthly rent of KRW 929,500 per month in excess of the rent earned by occupying and using the said building until transferring the said building. 2) The Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant building is related to the Plaintiff’s duty to return the lease deposit simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s duty to return the deposit, and as long as the Plaintiff did not return the deposit to the Defendant, the Defendant’s possession of the said building cannot be deemed as unlawful.

B. According to the facts seen earlier, the part on the request for delivery of the instant building was examined.