1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives 30 million won from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously receives the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. - Judgment on both claims in total

가. 원고(☞ 임대인)와 피고(☞ 임차인)가 별지 목록에 나오는 각 부동산(이하 편의상 통틀어 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라고 한다)에 관하여 맺은 임대차계약(☞ 임대차보증금 : 3,000만원)이 아무리 늦어도 2018. 9. 하순이 되기 전에 이미 계약기간이 지남으로써 종료된 사정은 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 이에 따라 원고도 피고에게 그 임대차계약에 따라 받은 임대차보증금 3,000만원을 반환할 의무가 있다는 점을 명백히 다투지 않는 이 사건에서, 특별한 사정이 없는 한 피고는 원고로부터 임대차보증금 3,000만원을 받음과 동시에 원고에게 이 사건 부동산을 인도할 의무가 있다.

B. As to this, the Defendant: (a) “After the Defendant leased the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, the Defendant installed a brick studio 115 square meters wide in the brick studio housing among the instant real estate; (b) installed a studio studio; (c) excavated one studio; and (d) constructed one studio 21 square meters wide in the main place and one studio 5.5 square meters in the toilet for restaurant business as above; (c) increased the value of the instant real estate by planting each trees as above, and there is an increase in its value; (d) the Defendant exercised the right to demand reimbursement or demand reimbursement pursuant to Article 626(2) of the Civil Act or Article 643 of the Civil Act; and (b) “the Plaintiff deprived the Defendant of the opportunity for the Defendant to recover the instant real estate without giving the Defendant an opportunity to recover the premium and thereby deprived the Defendant of the opportunity to recover the premium.”

Therefore, the Plaintiff shall compensate the Defendant for damages equivalent to the premium pursuant to Article 10-4(3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act and Article 3 of the Addenda (No. 13284, May 13, 2015).