1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 29,600,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its related amount from July 19, 2017 to January 9, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) with the deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and the period from July 18, 2015 to July 17, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

B. On July 2, 2017, the Plaintiff went to the instant building on the ground that the term of the instant lease expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s main claim, the instant lease agreement expired on July 17, 2017.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the deposit amount of KRW 30 million and delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not clean the building of this case as a director and did not clean the building of this case, and that the door board and the remote area were damaged and the sewage container was prevented. However, the defendant's allegation in this part is not accepted since there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

A. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant did not deliver the above building to the defendant, such as not transferring the key of the building of this case.

Therefore, the Plaintiff ought to deliver the instant building to the Defendant, and pay the unjust enrichment calculated at the rate of KRW 400,000 per month and KRW 400,00 for the unpaid rent on June 2017.

B. 1) We examine whether the building of this case was delivered or not, and there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant did not receive the key of the building of this case from the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant refused to receive the key and did not deliver the key, and the Plaintiff’s assertion that the key was not transmitted. The Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 4 through 9 (including each number, and the whole purport of arguments) can be seen as a whole.