1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 35,766,294 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and its related amount from February 26, 2015 to September 10, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is the owner of the building Nos. 1 through 7 located in the original city.

B. Around 2004, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on May 6, 2004 to May 5, 2007, with the lease term of No. 120, No. 120, No. 120, and No. 211.79,m2 (hereinafter “instant factory”) among the above buildings (hereinafter “instant factory”) from the Defendant, with the terms that the Plaintiff leased the said building from the Defendant, from May 6, 2004 to May 5, 2007; the rental fee of KRW 3,266,310 (excluding value-added tax); and the management fee of the said building was determined to be borne by the Plaintiff; from May 6, 2004, the Plaintiff carries on the business of manufacturing medical appliances

On May 6, 2010, between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, a lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the content that the Plaintiff leases the instant factory from the Defendant (in fact, it is deemed that the said factory is identical to the portion indicated as the previous factory, although the contract contains only the production factory - 170 square meters) during the lease period from May 6, 2010 to June 30, 2013, and the monthly rent of KRW 515,150 (excluding value-added tax) during the lease period, and the management expenses are to be borne by the Plaintiff (the imposition of monthly rent and management expenses at the rate of 8% per annum in arrears).

(A) As to the period from May 6, 2007 to May 5, 2010, a lease contract concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”), the Defendant did not dispute to the effect that the Plaintiff is seeking compensation for damages caused by leakage during the pertinent period, on the premise that the lease contract was concluded during the said period, and that there was no contract. Therefore, the conclusion of the lease contract is deemed to have been concluded even during the said period.

However, since the lease contract for the above period has not been submitted to this court, the specific details are not stated separately.

Although the lease contract has not been separately submitted for the period since July 1, 2013, it is new in light of the purport of the parties' assertion, witness D's testimony, etc.