1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from June 5, 2020 to KRW 22,843,00 from Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 2,843,00 from Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Common facts concerning the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. On December 5, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the building attached to the attached Form (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant with the deposit KRW 125,00,000, and the period fixed as of February 9, 2014.

B. On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant changed the terms of the instant lease agreement into KRW 100 million, monthly rent KRW 250,000, and the period until February 14, 2018. The said agreement was legally renewed until February 14, 2020.

(c)

On December 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant the intention of refusal of renewal.

(d)

On January 6, 2020, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the new lease agreement and the scheduled director of February 13, 2020.

E. However, the Defendant was not a director on February 13, 2020, and thereafter returned KRW 80,000,000 out of the deposit from the Plaintiff. As of the closing of pleadings of the instant case, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building as of the end of pleadings.

【Ground Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8】

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. From December 2019, the Plaintiff delivered the intent to refuse the renewal of the lease contract from around December 2019, and the Defendant accepted it on January 6, 2020, the instant lease agreement was terminated as of February 14, 2020.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff.

B. (1) Since the Defendant currently occupies and uses the building of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the amount of unfair profit worth KRW 250,000 from February 14, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant argues that the claim for monthly rent is unfair since the defendant merely rejected the return of the building of this case as part of the defense of simultaneous performance with the claim for refund of deposit, and does not use or benefit from the original purpose of the lease contract.

Even though the lessee continued to possess the leased building part in order to refuse the return of the object by exercising the right of defense for simultaneous performance even after the termination of the lease contract, it is original.