1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. The building indicated in the annexed list of buildings is handed over, and B.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff leased (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) a building indicated in the attached list “building” (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 650,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 650,000, and the lease period from June 25, 2013 to June 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On May 3, 2014, the Defendant promised to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff, notwithstanding the instant lease agreement, by full payment of the monthly rent in arrears until May 31, 2014.

C. Prior to the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant did not delay two or more times before the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant lawsuit, and has occupied the instant building until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The fact that the complaint of this case, which entered a declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground that the overdue rent of the Defendant under the duty to deliver the building reaches the two-year overdue rent, reaches the Defendant on December 22, 2014 is clear in the record, and in addition to the above basic facts, inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was effectively terminated pursuant to Article 640 of the Civil Act, the Defendant is therefore obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent up to the termination date of the instant lease agreement.

Furthermore, as to the specific amount, the Plaintiff is the person who received the rent from June 25, 2013 to August 24, 2013. Meanwhile, the Defendant asserted that additional one-month rent was paid. However, in light of the respective descriptions of evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, it is not sufficient to acknowledge it solely by the descriptions of evidence Nos. 10, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In the end, it is eventually.