1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) jointly delivers the real estate indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and on November 15, 2015.

1. Basic fact deposit: 350,000 won for monthly rent of KRW 10,00: The lease period: From December 15, 2014 to December 14, 2016, the lessor may terminate the contract immediately when the lessee has failed to pay the rent on at least two consecutive occasions;

Matters requiring special agreement: Internal repairs shall be borne by the lessee.

On December 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendants on the real estate stated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) as follows. The Defendants operated a singing room from around that time.

B. Upon the Plaintiff’s delegation, the Defendants agreed to change the monthly rent of the instant commercial building into KRW 300,000, among E and the Defendants, who were the Plaintiff’s ar and the Defendants managing the instant commercial building. The Defendants paid up until October 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The fact that only the Defendants paid the rent for October 2015 is as seen above, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendants paid the rent after the date. Since the Plaintiff declared that the lease was terminated by the delivery of the main complaint of this case on the grounds of the Defendants’ failure to pay the rent, the instant lease agreement was terminated.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to deliver the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff, and the Defendants are obligated to pay rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 300,000 per month from November 15, 2015 to the date of delivery of the instant commercial building.

B. The Defendants asserted to the effect that there was a justifiable reason for the shortage of rent, by asserting that flood did not occur in the instant commercial building, and that the control could not be carried out by making a noise report in the vicinity of the instant commercial building, and that the control could not be carried out seriously.

However, due to the reasons attributable to the Plaintiff, the Defendants.