The part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment is modified as follows. A.

To the Defendant-Counterclaim (Counterclaim).

1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning the instant case is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment of the counterclaim is dismissed or added as set forth in paragraph (2) below; and (b) thus, it

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s claim for restitution costs is based on the agreement on August 4, 2016 regarding the delivery and restitution of each of the instant stores following the instant agreement (hereinafter “Agreement on August 4, 2016”).

(2) According to the above agreement, the Defendant requested the Defendant to restore each of the instant stores to its original state on behalf of the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant spent KRW 5,00,00 in total with the cost of restoration related to the removal, etc. of various facilities installed by the Plaintiffs in possession of each of the instant stores. In accordance with the agreement on August 4, 2016, the Plaintiffs are obligated to pay the Defendant each of the costs of restoration corresponding to the Plaintiffs’ share of each of the total cost of restoration ( KRW 11,00,000, KRW 29,405,000, KRW 39,130,000, KRW 39,400, KRW 405,000, KRW 39,000, KRW 49,000) to the Defendant. Even if the Defendant’s claim for removal of disturbance against the Plaintiffs as the representative of the instant building, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Defendant the total cost of restitution to the Defendant up to 261, 2016.