1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) amounting to KRW 34,700,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from March 14, 2018 to June 19, 2018.

The principal counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff run a restaurant business in the name of “D (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) from the Defendant, with a lease deposit of KRW 38 million, the rent of KRW 1100,000,000,000,000, and the rent of KRW 1100,000,000,000,000 from August 12, 2015 to August 11, 2017, with the lease of part of KRW 52.53 square meters of the first floor among the buildings located in the steel bars and block structure C located in Busan-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On May 10, 2017, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that he/she would raise the deposit and monthly rent by 9% per year every three years for the remainder of the lease term under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act upon the expiration of the lease term on August 11, 2017.

C. On May 17, 2017, the Plaintiff prepared a commercial building lease premium agreement with Nonparty E, stating that the premium shall be transferred to Nonparty E as KRW 82 million with respect to the instant restaurant, and then introduced Nonparty E to the Defendant and knew the fact that the premium contract was concluded.

Therefore, although the defendant can guarantee the period under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act to the plaintiff, the new lessee expressed his intention to rent the building of this case.

On June 13, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that “Inasmuch as the term of lease expires on August 11, 2017, the Plaintiff would not renew the contract later, and thus, the Plaintiff would return the deposit for lease upon the expiration of the term of lease.” On July 3, 2017, the Defendant would prepare for the return of the deposit for lease, and the Plaintiff sent the procedure necessary for the change of the name of the business report certificate to the Gu office along with the Defendant, and a certificate of the purport that the instant building would be restored to its original state.

E. After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not transmit the keys to the restaurant as a matter of course with regard to the restoration of the building of this case to the original state, the Plaintiff is the restaurant of this case.