1. The part concerning the counterclaim of the first instance judgment shall be modified as follows.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is jointly employed.

In the first instance court’s judgment on the ground that the lease contract of this case was terminated, the Plaintiffs filed a suit against the Defendant seeking delivery of the leased object of this case, delayed rent, and return of unjust enrichment from the date of completion of delivery. The Defendant filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiffs, claiming damages, such as property damage and consolation money, due to violation of the duty to use and make profits from the leased object of this case. The first instance court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the leased object of this case as repayment of the remainder of the deposit deposit, dismissed the remainder of the overdue rent and return of unjust enrichment, respectively, and dismissed the Defendant’s claim for counterclaim.

However, as to the judgment of the court of first instance, only the defendant appealed against the part against the defendant among the principal lawsuit and counterclaim, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the part against the defendant among the plaintiff's principal lawsuit and the part against the defendant's counterclaim.

The reasoning of the court’s explanation as to this case is as follows. The court’s explanation on this case is as follows: (a) the 7th 6th 6th son of the judgment of the court of first instance (“judgment on a counterclaim”) is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of

(However, the part which conflict with the reasoning of the judgment of the court is excluded). The judgment on the counterclaim 4.

A. Since the conclusion of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant’s assertion, water leakage occurred on the upper floor of the leased object of this case from March 2017, and spread to the tent of the leased object of this case.

Therefore, even though the defendant requested the plaintiffs to prepare a fundamental solution, the defendant has avoided liability with the responsibility of water leakage to the lessee of the first floor, and has sustained losses as shown in the attached Form due to the continuation of water leakage in the process.

Therefore, it is true.