1.The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal claim shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

Basic Facts

On March 9, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with regard to the portion of 118.08 square meters for general restaurants (hereinafter “instant store”) from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015 regarding the term of lease, the lease deposit of KRW 60,000,000, and the rent of KRW 1,30,000 per month (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On October 2014, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to reduce the rent of KRW 1,00,000 per month during the remaining term of the lease. The Defendant consented thereto, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,00,000 per month from November 2014 to March 2015.

On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff sent the key to the store to the real estate office next to the instant store, and ordered the Defendant to order the instant store.

On May 1, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 10, Eul evidence No. 10, and the facts of the judgment as to the grounds for the claim of the principal lawsuit as a whole, the lease contract of this case is clearly concluded to have expired due to the expiration of the lease term, and the defendant, who was ordered by the plaintiff as the lessee, ordered the store of this case from the plaintiff as the lessee, has the obligation to pay the plaintiff the remainder of the lease deposit and damages for delay.

On October 2014, the Defendant’s assertion on the part of the Defendant’s claim for the reduction of the rent on the Defendant’s defense and the counterclaim claim, that the Plaintiff continued to lease the instant store even after the expiration of the lease agreement term of this case. Accordingly, the Defendant accepted the claim and subsequently reduced the monthly rent of KRW 300,000 from November 1, 2014 to March 2015. However, the Plaintiff violated the aforementioned commitment.