1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff A, Defendant B, and Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 12, 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant A entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to D apartment Nos. 616 and 1106 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

The special terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement stipulate that “The lessor shall use the entire way of repairing the toilet in a set of Doing, lengthing, shing, singing, shoes, all coloring, and the entire toilet.”

B. Defendant B is a licensed real estate agent who acts as a broker for the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant Association is engaged in a mutual aid business to guarantee the liability of the licensed real estate agent for damages.

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant A the lease deposit of KRW 30 million. However, the Plaintiff did not fully pay the monthly rent from July 5, 2014, starting from the possession of the instant apartment upon delivery.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts as follows as the main lawsuit against the defendants.

(1) Defendant A failed to perform or incomplete terms and conditions agreed upon at the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, and Defendant A’s act of preserving against the Plaintiff’s will that led to the Plaintiff’s failure to achieve the purpose of the lease.

In addition, when Defendant A entered into the instant lease agreement, he/she did not know about the fact that he/she did not know about the fact that he/she was using hot water and hot water in the process of entering into the instant lease agreement, and if the Plaintiff was aware of such fact, he/she did not enter into

Therefore, the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement by delivering a duplicate of the complaint of this case pursuant to Defendant A’s contract or Article 625 of the Civil Act, or the Plaintiff expressed its intent to conclude the instant lease agreement by fraud (violation of duty of notification) or mistake of Defendant A.