1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) delivers to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) the part of the building indicated in the attached list, and November 1, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 31, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the part of the building indicated in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, with a deposit of KRW 5 million, KRW 500,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000, and period of KRW 48 months.

Since then, the above lease contract has been implicitly renewed, and in 2016, the monthly rent was changed to KRW 700,000 according to the agreement of the defendant.

B. From March 201, the Defendant is operating a restaurant with the trade name “C” in the instant building from March 201.

C. On September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 8 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the judgment on the claim on the main claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on October 31, 2016 as the expiration of the period.

(1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted to the effect that the term of the instant lease agreement was orally agreed from March 201, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, as well as the written evidence No. 1, which is a disposal document. Therefore, the Defendant, as the lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant building, which is the leased object, to the Plaintiff as the lessor, and to pay unjust enrichment calculated by the ratio of KRW 700,000 per month, which is the amount equivalent to the rent from November 1, 2016 to the delivery date of the instant building.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The gist of the Defendant’s argument is that the Plaintiff refused to enter into a lease agreement with the said new lessee without justifiable grounds, such as requesting the new lessee arranged by the Defendant to significantly high the amount of money, with the intent to have him/her operate a coffee shop in the instant building. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages equivalent to the premium on the instant building.

B. It is recognized that the occurrence of one liability for damages was included in the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, and the witness D’s testimony added to the whole purport of the pleadings.