1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the review shall be borne by the Lessee.

1. The following facts are apparent in records:

The Plaintiff filed a counterclaim against the Defendant to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,566,326 and delay damages therefor,” and the Defendant filed a counterclaim to the effect that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 9,350,000 to the Defendant and delay damages therefor.”

On April 30, 2013, the court of the first instance rendered a judgment dismissing the defendant's counterclaim by citing the plaintiff's claim on the main lawsuit and rejecting the defendant's counterclaim.

(Judgment of the court of first instance).

On November 28, 2013, the judgment of the court of first instance ruled that the defendant's appeal against the above judgment of the court of first instance reduced the claim for a counterclaim of 4,060,000 won and damages for delay thereof, and that the court of second instance accepted the claim for the principal and part of the principal and part of the damages for delay, and dismissed the remainder of the principal and part of the claim, and all appeals against the defendant's remaining appeal against the principal and counterclaims are dismissed.

(Judgment of the appellate court prior to the review).

On November 29, 2013, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were served with the original copy of the judgment of the above appellate court on November 29, 2013, and the said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on December 14, 2013.

Of the judgment of the first instance court on February 3, 2014, the Defendant filed a petition for a new trial on the part of the counterclaim (the Busan District Court 2014JL15). As seen earlier, the Defendant’s petition for a new trial on the said part of the counterclaim was rendered at the appellate court prior to the new trial, and pursuant to Article 451(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, the Defendant’s petition for a new trial on the part of the counterclaim among the judgment of the said appellate court, and was distributed to this court, which was the appellate court, on February

Therefore, the counterclaim part among the above judgment of the above appellate court is the judgment subject to a retrial). 2. The defendant's argument

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s lease from the Defendant C 402 Dong 1203 (hereinafter “instant building”), there was “a description of confirmation of the object of brokerage” to the effect that there was no defect in the instant building.