The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall deliver the building indicated in the attached Table to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Defendant Counterclaim (Counterclaim).

1. The fact that the Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”), and the fact that the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the instant building from November 2007 and operates the golf practice range in the said building is no dispute between the parties.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The summary of the party's assertion (1) around November 2007, the defendant occupied and used the building of this case from the plaintiff on a five-year lease term from the plaintiff, and since the above lease term expires, the defendant is obligated to return the building of this case to the plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff, around October 2007, failed to perform the obligation of the lease contract, by allowing the Defendant to establish and operate the skin center and private house on the first floor of the underground floor, and not fulfilling the obligation of the lease contract, even though the Plaintiff promised to guarantee the right to operate the screen golf course as a cycle.

(B) Since the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 1,500,000,000 to the lease deposit, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the said lease deposit to the Defendant simultaneously with the delivery of the instant building from the Defendant.

(C) The Defendant spent a total of KRW 1,249,00,000 from March 2008 to May 2008, and completed the remodelling construction of the instant building, thereby increasing the objective value of the instant building. As such, the Defendant has the right to possess the instant building by entering into the lien until repayment of the above beneficial cost.

B. (1) Determination on the duty to deliver the building of this case (1) Evidence Nos. 4, 1, 2, and 1, and 2 (no dispute over each part of the Defendant’s stamp image of each of the above lease agreements is established, and the authenticity of each of the above documents is presumed to have been established. Accordingly, if the Defendant asserts that he/she had no choice but to have affixed a seal by coercion or deception of the Plaintiff without knowing the content thereof, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), the whole purport