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

2. The costs of appeal shall be principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case in this case are as follows: (a) deleted from "D" to "D" to "21" in Part 4 of the Judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) from "current" to "fact 6" in Part 4 of the 6th decision of the court of first instance; and (c) other than adding the following additional determinations, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendant asserts that D’s declaration of intention of termination was made in order to receive the overdue loan, and that it constitutes an incomplete declaration of intention. Since D’s declaration of intention was known or could have known that D’s declaration of intention of termination was not a true intention, D’s declaration of intention is null and void, and thus, D’s lease contract is not terminated on or around May 31, 2016.

On the other hand, the truth in the expression of intention in the misunderstanding of intention does not refer to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not refer to the matter in the process of the misunderstanding of intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da47361, Dec. 27, 2002). As seen earlier, D’s expression of intention of termination cannot be deemed to lack of the intention of the internal effect in making the expression of intention of termination, and therefore, D’s expression of intention of termination does not constitute an expression of intention of the misunderstanding of intention ( even if the expression of intention of termination is an expression of intention of the misunderstanding of intention, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff knew or could have known that the expression of intention of termination of D was not an intention of the misunderstanding of intention of the misunderstanding of intention of termination). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion

B. The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff agreed with the defendant to restore the facilities installed by the former lessee to the original state, the obligation to deliver the real estate of this case was not fulfilled.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Plaintiff himself/herself is based on the evidence No. 1.