1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with KRW 8,409,836.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 7, 2005, the Plaintiff leased each of the buildings listed in the separate sheet used as a money shed to the Defendant by setting the rent of KRW 24 million per annum and the period until December 31, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On July 14, 2005, when the Defendant paid KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff as the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, and received delivery of each of the instant buildings from the Plaintiff and used them, there was a fire that was destroyed due to the fire, such as delivery of delivery and non-land death, among each of the instant buildings.

C. Since then, the Plaintiff received the fire insurance money from the insurance company and delivered it to the Defendant. Based on this, the Defendant newly constructed or repaired a part of each of the instant buildings. Around that time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to extend the term of the instant lease agreement to December 31, 2015, and agreed to share half of the fire insurance premiums on each of the instant buildings from around 2006.

After that, on December 10, 2012 and December 22, 2012, a fire again occurred in each of the instant buildings, and on two occasions, the fire was destroyed to the extent that the use of each of the instant buildings is impossible as originally intended. Of each of the instant buildings, the fire was partially destroyed by a delivery company and a non-landr (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant fire”) and the fire was partially destroyed to the extent that the fire was destroyed to the extent that the use of each of the instant buildings, other than the composts and the management company, was made impossible.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 5, 11, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 6 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of on-site inspection conducted by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff 1 did not pay the rent, and the plaintiff 1 did not fulfill his duty of care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of the leased object.