1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 16,548,00 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) for KRW 16,548,00 and for this, from January 27, 2016 to March 31, 2017.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff leased 107 commercial buildings located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,900,000 (excluding value-added tax) and the lease period from September 1, 2012 to September 1, 2014.

B. The Defendant operated a licensed real estate agent office in the name of “D real estate” in the instant building, but failed to pay monthly rent and management expenses during the said lease term, and the Plaintiff and the doctor did not agree.

The plaintiff restored the building of this case to its original state after the lease term expires.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1 and 4

2. Main elements;

A. Part 1 concerning the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim refers to the monthly rent of KRW 48,450,000 (2,090,000 each month from September 2012 to November 201, and the monthly rent of KRW 1,90,000 for which the Plaintiff seeks from December 2013 to August 2014.

The Defendant alleged that the instant building was not used from July 2013 to August 2014, and that his claim for monthly rent during that period is unjustifiable. However, there is no reason to recognize that the said lease was terminated during the said contract period, such as the termination of the agreement between the parties, etc., and the Defendant did not use the instant building.

However, such circumstance does not constitute a justifiable reason to refuse the payment of monthly rent.

In addition, according to the evidence evidence Nos. 5 and No. 2, the defendant set aside from the building of this case on or around December 11, 2013, and paid KRW 1,000,000 for management expenses. The management expenses were adjusted from November 201, 2013 to January 201, 2014. It is recognized that the defendant had a third party use the building of this case during the above lease term or had a house, etc. as it is, and the defendant's above assertion is.