Of the principal lawsuit of the first instance judgment, 65,733,333 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the claim for monetary payment.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing this case, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the court either saw it as follows or added an additional judgment as stipulated in paragraph (2). Thus, it shall be cited as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The fourth-class 9 to 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

[1) Since the Defendant’s claim for exemption from or reduction of the rent is not acceptable, the Defendant is obligated to pay the rent under the instant lease agreement. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant paid the rent after July 6, 2018 (the Plaintiff sought subsequent rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent on the ground that the Defendant did not pay the rent after June 6, 2018. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 11, the Defendant’s claim that the rent was paid after the date of termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant’s claim that the rent was KRW 4 million on April 17, 2018, KRW 4 million on June 7, 2018, KRW 400,000 on July 11, 2018, KRW 400,000 on July 4, 2018, and KRW 300,000 on September 7, 2018). Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim that the rent was lawfully paid from June 27, 2018.

2) As seen earlier, the part on the claim for delivery of a building was terminated on or around March 5, 2019. As such, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. (iii) The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff the part on the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent or rent after July 7, 2018, that the instant lease contract was terminated on or after March 5, 2019, and the fact that the instant lease contract was terminated on or after March 5, 2019 is as seen earlier.