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

(a) deliver all the first floor of the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the claim of the principal lawsuit (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is that the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) only sought payment, such as delivery of the first floor (hereinafter “the instant building”) of the building indicated in the attached Table on the grounds of the termination of the lease, on the ground of the termination of the lease.

The facts below the judgment of this Court do not conflict between the parties, or are recognized by taking account of the entries in Gap evidence 1 to 7 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of arguments.

Since the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the instant building with the Defendant from around 1993, the Plaintiff has renewed or renewed the lease agreement several times.

On April 1, 2015, the above parties entered into a lease contract with the lease deposit of KRW 220 million, monthly rent of KRW 5.7 million (payment after the 9th of the following month), and monthly management expenses of KRW 320,000 (each value-added tax separate agreement), and the lease contract with the lease term of two years from April 9, 2015 (hereinafter “the above last contract”).

Since February 2016, the defendant has been in arrears with monthly rent, management expenses, etc. prescribed in the lease of this case from February 2016.

On August 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of the termination of the lease of this case on the ground of the delinquency in rent, and the notice of termination was delivered to the Defendant around that time.

The defendant did not pay 2,381,234 won in total including water supply fees and cleaning expenses of septic tanks until around July 2018.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff claimed payment of KRW 1,622,00,000, which is part of the above money, from the Defendant.

According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated around August 2018 by the notice of termination on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delinquency in rent. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is the Plaintiff, and the instant building, which is the object of rent, barring any special circumstance.