The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the fourth floor of the instant building, such as delivery of the fourth floor of the instant building, overdue rent, etc., on the ground that the Plaintiff did not deliver the fourth floor of the instant building to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”), and determined that the instant second floor lease contract was terminated as long as the instant second floor lease contract was terminated, and the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the second floor rent, such as overdue rent, etc. was terminated at the time of the termination of the lease deposit, and that the Defendant’s claim for the return of the second floor lease deposit against the Plaintiff was extinguished in excess of the lease deposit. Accordingly, the Defendant was obligated to deliver the second floor of the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,40,000 per month from August 1, 2016 to the completion of delivery of the second floor of the instant building.

In addition, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim that the Plaintiff was unable to operate the 2nd and 4th floor of the instant building on the ground that among the Defendant’s counterclaims, the Plaintiff was unable to deliver the 4th floor of the instant building and the Defendant’s claim for damages, on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant concluded each of the instant lease agreements on the condition that the 2nd and 4th floor of the instant building were leased along with the 4th floor of the instant building. As to the claim for the refund of the deposit for each of the instant 2 and 4th floors, the instant deposit was entirely deducted from the rent in arrears, and the instant deposit for the 4th floor lease was set off

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, there are some inappropriate parts in the reasoning of the lower judgment, but the conclusion of the lower court is justifiable, and the legal principles on the interpretation of each of the instant lease agreements