Of the counterclaims of the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff, the part demanding the delivery of the equipment listed in the attached Table 1 shall be dismissed.

1. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. (1) On April 19, 201, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate as KRW 50 million, from February 5, 2011 to February 5, 2014, the rental fee was KRW 200,000,000 per month, and the remainder of the period, KRW 3750,000 per month, on the land and its ground owned by the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Since then, E/F, the Plaintiff’s parent, operated a restaurant from the instant real estate.

(2) The Plaintiff delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on August 4, 2014, which was after the termination of the instant lease.

(3) The Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant the sum of 12,375,00 won (=4,125,000 won (3,750,000 won of monthly rent) x 3] of the rent for three months and its value-added tax. The Plaintiff paid the sum of 1,766,272 won in arrears to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,858,728 (i.e., deposit KRW 50 million - unpaid rents, etc. KRW 12,375,00 - electricity rates of KRW 1,766,272) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 5, 2014 to the date of full payment.

C. The Defendant’s defense of the Defendant’s deduction of the cost of restoration to the original state was due to the Plaintiff’s negligence in managing the instant real estate during the lease period, and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to manage the instant real estate requires KRW 2.45,00 won for repairing and replacing the instant real estate, which is the leased object, due to the loss of boiler, the destruction of boiler, the removal of garbage, the destruction of gas ethics, the breakdown, and the gas leakage.

The defendant's assertion that the statement of Nos. 1 and 3-1 through 10 alone is the same.