1. The counterclaim Defendant: 5,00,000 won to the counterclaim and 5% per annum from August 22, 2017 to January 10, 2018.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 10, 2016, the Counterclaim Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent, entered into a contract to lease (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) the portion (a) of 45 square meters in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 connected each point among the buildings listed in the attached Table among the buildings listed in the attached Table, with a deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 300,000,000,000, monthly rent, and KRW 24 months for lease period, with a view to using them as a brokerage office from the Counterclaim Defendant. Moreover, the Counterclaim Defendant was to employ the Counterclaim Defendant as the brokerage assistant of the Lessee office.

The following special terms are stipulated in the instant lease agreement.

[Matters under special agreement] (1) Deposit shall be paid as signboards and other facility expenses of a brokerage office.

(2) Monthly taxes shall be paid out of the reserve funds if such reserve funds become a specified ratio.

Provided, That no reserve shall be paid unless there is a reserve.

B. The Counterclaim Plaintiff: (a) opened a brokerage office by installing signboards, electronic displays, equipment, etc. on the instant store; (b) employed the counterclaim Defendant and operated the brokerage business; (c) did not pay monthly rent to the counterclaim Defendant on the ground that no profit was accrued therefrom.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 10 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Progress of litigation;

A. The counterclaim Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the instant store and the payment of overdue rent with the principal lawsuit claiming that the instant lease contract was terminated due to the non-payment of the deposit and the monthly rent of the Counterclaim Plaintiff (this Court Decision 2016No38372), but it was deemed that the principal lawsuit was withdrawn by failing to file an application for fixed date designation even if he/she was absent twice on the date of pleading (this Court Decision 2016No38372

B. On this issue, the Counterclaim filed a counterclaim seeking refund of the deposit and compensation for damages, consenting to the termination of the instant lease agreement.

3...