1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. The plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant) may file a counterclaim in the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 9, 2014, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C to lease KRW 200,000,000 (including value-added tax) for the first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1, which are owned by C, as indicated in the attached Table 1, for a period of 24 months from March 9, 2014 to March 8, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and operated the same as “D” upon delivery of the instant store without paying the said deposit.

B. On August 29, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the said building from his/her husband, his/her father, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement.

C. The Defendant paid KRW 3,010,000 per month for five months from August 9, 2014 to January 8, 2015, which is the monthly rent under the instant lease agreement, at all, from January 9, 2015.

On April 1, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease agreement will be terminated on the grounds of the failure to pay the lease deposit and the delinquency in rent, and the said notification was served on the Defendant on the same day.

E. On February 1, 2016, the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff on April 1, 2015, as the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay, and that the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated on or around April 1, 2015.

However, the defendant delivered the store of this case to the plaintiff on February 1, 2016, which was after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

B. On the part of a claim for overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to rent.