1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) with KRW 2,603,420.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. From 2004, the Defendant operated F (hereinafter “instant game site”) on the first underground floor of the E building located in Gwangju Dong-gu, Gwangju (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff.

B. On October 20, 2010, the Plaintiff closed the instant building E, and the instant game equipment, etc. owned by the Defendant in the instant game room were not released, but remains in the instant game room.

C. On November 20, 2012, the Bank: (a) received the instant building awarded around November 20, 2012; (b) G, an employee of the Plaintiff, requested the Defendant to post a telephone to remove the instant game machine, etc. located in the instant game site on November 27, 2012.

As the Defendant did not comply with this, the Plaintiff took out the game of this case from December 4, 2012 to the game of this case and stored the building of this case leased by the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 8 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for collection of the instant game machine, etc. based on the right of lease, as a lessee of the instant building, has the right to use and benefit from the instant building, and the Defendant interferes with the Plaintiff’s business because it did not collect the instant game machine, etc. kept in the instant building. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to collect the instant

However, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff’s right to use and benefit from the instant building may not be claimed against the Defendant, a third party, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. On December 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages due to tort on the ground that the Defendant did not collect the instant game machine, etc. from the game site of this case.