1. The judgment of the first instance, including the counterclaim claim that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) changed in exchange at the trial is below.

1. On December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 40,00,000, KRW 3,100,000 per month of rent, and KRW 3,10,000 per month of rent, from December 1, 2012 to December 1, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and around that time, delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant building on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the rent from August 2017, and on November 21, 2017, the Defendant terminated the instant lease contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for at least three (3) years. The duplicate of the instant complaint reached the Defendant on December 12, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4 and 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated with the Defendant’s three or more times of rent, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the cost of restitution and the unpaid rent.

B. Since the contract of this case was terminated by the Defendant, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the remainder lease deposit to the Defendant after deducting the unpaid rent from the Defendant.

3. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the facts found in the determination as to the claim for the delivery of the instant building, the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 12, 2017, where the duplicate of the complaint of the Plaintiff, which included the Defendant’s declaration of intention of termination on the grounds of delinquency in rent for at least three years pursuant to Article 10-8 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, delivered to the Defendant.

However, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 11, 13, 14, 15, and 16 and the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant expressed his/her intention of delivery of a building on February 6, 2018 and February 26, 2018 on the premise that the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff on February 28, 2018 expires, and ② thereafter, the Defendant is the restaurant operated by the instant building on March 1, 2018.