1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The expansion from the trial.

1. Basic facts

A. Of the real estate listed in the attached list for the use of the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the building (hereinafter “instant building”) among the real estate listed in the attached list for the purpose of the instant real estate is “multi-household housing (multi-household housing)” in the building ledger and the certified copy of the registry, the use of which is “business facilities (offices) from the underground first floor living facilities, from the first floor to the sixth floor above the ground, and from the seventh to the

B. On July 2012, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement to lease the instant real estate (hereinafter “the first lease agreement”) with the Plaintiffs’ test to run a recreation business with the trade name “D” in the instant building. The main contents of the first lease agreement are as follows.

The purpose of rescue: Business facility (office) and deposit for multi-household housing (multi-household housing): 300 million won (in case of a contract, KRW 50 million shall be paid by August 10, 2012; the remainder of KRW 200 million shall be paid by September 1, 2012): A period of KRW 43 million per month (payment on September 31, 2012; value-added tax separately): From September 1, 2012 to August 31, 2018; the lessee fails to pay rent at least twice consecutively; the lessee transfers possession of the object without the lessor’s permission; or the lessor may terminate this contract immediately when the lessee transfers the object without the lessor’s permission.

Matters of special agreement

2. The lessor shall bear the level of royalties to run the underground restaurant, the waterway, and other lodging businesses; and

C. (1) On October 15, 2012, the Defendant asserted that the instant building was unable to engage in accommodation business due to the lack of structural change, and that the Plaintiff was unaware of the Defendant by failing to notify the Defendant of such fact, and that the lease deposit already paid KRW 200 million and the facility investment cost, personnel expenses and food expenses incurred by the Defendant, and the travel agency reservation are revoked.