1. Of the judgment of the first instance regarding a counterclaim, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who has lost the amount exceeding the amount ordered to be paid under the following.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) the part on “1. Recognition” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to that of the part on “1. Recognition” in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the “3.3 square meters” in the third place of the judgment of the first instance is deemed as “3.3 square meters; and (b) such part is cited in accordance

2. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this part of the claim for damages caused by water leakage in the principal lawsuit is as stated in the part concerning “the claim for damages caused by water leakage in the principal lawsuit” among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420

3. Claim for refund of deposit for lease, and claim for the counterclaim or counterclaim of the defendant among the principal lawsuit;

A. The plaintiffs, as the principal claim, seek payment of KRW 19,600,000 remaining after deducting the overdue rent from KRW 30,000,000, which is the amount of the unpaid lease deposit. Accordingly, the defendant, as a counterclaim, seek payment of the remaining amount after deducting the amount from the amount of the unpaid lease deposit amount of KRW 30,00,000 with each of the following claims:

The unpaid electricity charges and management fees in arrears from May 1, 2014 to March 31, 2017, and the unpaid water and sewage charges, calculated by the ratio of 12% per annum to 12% per annum from the unpaid water and sewage charges, calculated based on the unpaid water and sewage charges, for late-payment damages equivalent to the rent due to illegal possession from April 1, 2017 to April 30, 2017.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the Defendant agreed to terminate the instant lease agreement on December 31, 2016 with the Defendant on the date of termination of the lease agreement, and the date of delivery, i.e., the overdue rent and management expenses and the amount of damages equivalent to the rent due to illegal possession (i.e., the date of termination of the lease agreement). As such, the Defendant did not agree on the termination of the lease agreement, and the Defendant did not claim that the lease agreement was terminated on March 31, 2017,

It is recognized that the Plaintiffs agreed on December 31, 2016 with the Defendant solely based on the evidence Nos. 20 and 21.