1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the counterclaim concerning a claim for usage fees is revoked, and the counterclaim falls under the revoked part.

1. The reasons why this court should explain are as follows: (a) the part concerning the judgment on the claim for counterclaim under paragraph (3) of the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (as to the part concerning conduct Nos. 6 through No. 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance) is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment (the testimony of K, U, and I alone by a witness of the court of first instance is insufficient to reverse the facts of the first instance judgment); and (b) it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim part

A. Of the counterclaim, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the usage fee of KRW 69,010,320 (=66,00,000 x 2,071,405,600 x 1,981,988,000 x 1,981,048,000), which is the starting date of use, to the Defendant from June 10, 2015 to January 7, 2016 (69,010,010 x 320 x 212/365) which is equivalent to the period from June 7, 2016, which is from the starting date of use to the cancellation date of the instant permission, to the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff’s assertion is also obligated to pay the Defendant the usage fee of public property of the second year and the administrative property of the State property for which the administration authority grants permission for use or profit-making of the State property after granting permission for use or profit-making of the public property.

In addition, even if the rent and late payment charge are not paid by the payment deadline for the shared general property, there are simplified and economic special relief procedures in accordance with Article 97 (2) of the Public Property and Commodity Management Act.