1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 1, 2014, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant who was de facto in a de facto marital relationship, a lease agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on February 28, 2017, under which the Plaintiff leased D panty (hereinafter “D panty”) located in Gangwon-gun, the Plaintiff owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant by February 28, 2017. The Plaintiff’s remuneration is attributable to the Plaintiff as of April 10, 2014 for the de facto old part of the building as of the date of the lease agreement.

Provided, That the Plaintiff’s fee of KRW 50 million for the repair of old age facilities shall be lent to the Defendant without interest to the Defendant, and the fee of KRW 50 million shall be repaid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff with business profits, etc. within the term of this lease.

“The Agreement was made.”

B. In accordance with the above agreement, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 10 million to the Defendant on April 15, 2014, KRW 5 million on May 8, 2014, and KRW 10 million on June 18, 2014 into each of the Defendant accounts. The Defendant immediately received the said money and transferred it to E-contractor at the cost of external wall construction.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's main claim

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that, at the request of the defendant, the construction cost of KRW 25 million was paid to the defendant, not only the above KRW 25 million paid to the defendant, but also the above KRW 25 million was leased to the defendant to the shower room, and that the plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the defendant instead of the defendant. (2) The defendant asserts that the above debt was extinguished as the settlement agreement dated August 11, 2014.

B. (1) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 10, the Defendant concluded the instant lease agreement and became unable to operate pentine any longer as the Plaintiff was able to operate the instant pentine around July 2014, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant on August 11, 2014 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.