1. Of the part on the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is below.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to terminate the instant lease agreement, and thus, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to refund KRW 7,849,316 to the Plaintiff, a lessee, after deducting the unpaid rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from KRW 15,00,00,00.

In addition, in order to use the land of this case, the Plaintiff changed the land category into the site by bringing KRW 13,303,89, and actually formed the site by bringing KRW 9,074,800 into the site, and at KRW 26,00,000, the Plaintiff set up the control of this case.

(Plaintiff withdrawn the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of beneficial costs related to the removal of a bridge through a preparatory document dated August 20, 2018. The Plaintiff’s aforementioned subsidization of expenses increased the value of the instant land due to the increase in its value, and there is an increase in its value, so the Defendant is obligated to reimburse the said expenses to the Plaintiff as beneficial costs.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,428,015 [=Lease deposit KRW 7,849,316 + Expenses for land category change + KRW 13,303,899 + Expenses for site creation + KRW 9,074,800 + KRW 18,200,000 (== KRW 26,00,000 x 0.7)] and damages for delay.

B. Determination 1) As seen earlier, the part on the claim for the return of the lease deposit is that the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated, and there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff completed the removal of the instant permitted building on October 10, 2016 and the delivery of the instant land to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant, from April 20, 2016 to October 10, 2016, where the Plaintiff was not paid the rent from KRW 15,00,000 to KRW 7,150,684 as the rent or the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from April 20, 2016 to the Plaintiff’s transfer of the instant land, = annual rent 15,00.