1. The Defendant’s KRW 581,376 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from August 7, 2018 to November 28, 2019.

1. The instant case’s basic facts (2018dada1030) was substantially examined with the principal lawsuit and the 2018dadada98 case in a counterclaim, and the following was written by reflecting this point: (a)

On September 18, 2017, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff with the following terms:

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The target real estate: the lease period of KRW 4 million (4 million per month, and KRW 400,000 per month (after September 25, 2017) from September 25, 2017 to September 24, 2019

B. On December 13, 2017, when the Defendant resided in the instant real estate after being handed over by the Plaintiff, the water supply management of the instant real estate was removed.

C. From December 13, 2017, the Defendant did not reside in the instant real estate, and removed the instant real estate on May 29, 2018.

The defendant paid 4 million won and 800,000 won to the plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 23 evidence, Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Although the Defendant asserts that the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground of mistake and fraud, or that the lease contract of this case was terminated on the ground of the Plaintiff’s nonperformance, there is insufficient evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion, and in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the accident of this case was caused by negligence in taking measures to prevent the dynamic wave, such as where the Defendant neglected to take measures to prevent the dynamic wave, by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in the evidence Nos. 5 and No. 1 (including a paper number).

However, on May 29, 2018, the Defendant completed the measure of evictioning from the instant real estate on May 29, 2018, and the instant lease agreement was terminated implicitly because the Plaintiff did not raise any objection thereto.