1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is Jinju-si from the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant C.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the counterclaim in this case is legitimate or not.

A defendant may, only if it does not remarkably delay the litigation procedures, file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit is pending not later than the closure of pleadings.

(Article 269(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. However, the fact that the Defendant filed the instant counterclaim after the lapse of April 29, 2015, which was the date of the closing of argument, is apparent in the record.

Therefore, the counterclaim of this case is inappropriate as being raised after the closing of argument, and it constitutes a case where the defects cannot be corrected, and thus, it shall be dismissed without holding any pleadings pursuant to Article 219 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. Determination 1 as to the cause of claim 1) The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of each entry and pleading in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and there is no reflective evidence. A) The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D for a period of two years from December 17, 2011 to December 16, 201, setting lease deposit amount of KRW 60,000,000 for lease deposit and KRW 46,000 for the portion on board (a) in the order of December 10, 201.

B) D On March 19, 2013, a building of the five-story detached houses and the second-class neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “instant building”) recorded in the order, including the instant room, to the Defendant on March 19, 2013.

(2) In full view of the fact that the Defendant, who succeeded to the lessor status of the instant room from D, sells the instant room at KRW 629,00,000, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the Defendant on the same day. (2) In full view of the fact that the Defendant did not have any dispute as to the existence of opposing power as to the Plaintiff’s lease agreement, the Defendant, who succeeded to the lessor status of the instant room from D, shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 as lease deposit upon the expiration of the lease term.