1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) 159,600.

1. Basic facts

A. Of the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the building (hereinafter “instant building”) among the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”) has its use as “multi-household housing (multi-household housing)” in the building ledger and the certified copy of the building register with the business facilities (office) from the underground first floor to the sixth floor above the ground level, and from the seventh to the tenth floor above the ground level.

B. On July 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement that leases the instant real estate from the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “first lease agreement”) to operate a recreation business with a mutual name “D” in the instant building. The details stated in the first lease agreement are as follows.

The purpose of rescue: 30 million won (in case of a contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 50 million until August 10, 2012, and the balance of KRW 200 million until September 1, 2012): A period of KRW 43 million (payment on September 31, 2012, and value-added tax separately) per month: From September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2018, the lessor may terminate this contract immediately when the lessee has failed to pay rents at least twice continuously, the lessee transfers possession of the object without the lessor’s permission, or the lessor is able to cancel this contract without the lessor’s permission.

Matters of special agreement

2. The lessor shall bear the level of royalties to run the underground restaurant, the waterway, and other lodging businesses; and

C. On October 15, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the instant building was unable to engage in accommodation business due to the lack of structural change, and that the Plaintiff was unaware of the Defendant by failing to notify the Defendant of such fact, and that the Defendant cancelled or cancelled the first lease contract on the ground that it was deceiving the Defendant, and that it was proved that the Defendant sought damages of KRW 94,565,50, such as expenses for facility investment, labor cost and food incurred by the Defendant, and operating damages following the cancellation of the travel agency’s reservation.