1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

3. An objection to the trial.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant at KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 400,000,000 per each month (hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease”) with the lease term until July 26, 2015, and around that time, the Defendant paid KRW 10,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. After November 27, 2013, the Defendant did not pay a rent for the instant lease. On February 19, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease on the ground that the Plaintiff did not pay a rent that shall be paid to the Defendant on December 27, 2013 and January 27, 2014.

C. On May 22, 2014, a duplicate of the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant real estate was served on the Defendant, and the Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on December 22, 2015, which was subsequent to the first instance judgment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition as to the claim of the principal claim, the lease of this case is deemed to have been terminated or terminated due to the termination of the lease term due to the delay in rent for at least two years, or the refusal to renew the contract of the plaintiff. However, once the defendant delivered the real estate of this case to the plaintiff on December 22, 2015, the part seeking the delivery of the real estate of this case in the plaintiff's principal claim is without merit. However, the defendant is obliged to pay to the plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from November 27, 2013 to December 22, 2015, the date following the payment of the last rent to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant did not have a heating system through arche in the Yellow bank installed in the real estate of this case, and the repair of the damaged shower flaf, scing, etc. was not done from time to time, and there was serious damage due to clibing, so the defendant argued that he did not have a duty to pay the above rent, etc., but the purport of the entire pleadings is as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8, 9, and 10.