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

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, Appointed Party) is the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Plaintiff A.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. As to the part of the underlying facts, the relevant part of the reasoning of the first instance judgment shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The monthly rent under the instant lease agreement is KRW 700,000,000, and there was no fact that the Plaintiffs or their parents (F and H) reduced the monthly rent to KRW 650,000 or KRW 550,000.

(2) The Defendant’s overdue rent of KRW 26.1 million [the monthly rent of KRW 126 million = the amount of KRW 126 million from November 20, 2002 to November 20, 2017 x KRW 700,000 from November 20, 201) - The instant lease agreement is terminated.

(3) The Defendant shall deliver the instant store to the Plaintiffs, and pay the unpaid rent of KRW 26.1 million, unpaid management fees of KRW 139,00,000, and overdue electricity of KRW 150,640. The Defendant shall pay KRW 700,00 per month to the Plaintiffs for unjust enrichment from November 21, 2017 to the delivery of the said store.

B. The Defendant (1) agreed to talk with F to talk about the circumstances that water leakage occurs while running the instant store and it is difficult to conduct a normal business due to mycochisity, and to reduce the monthly rent into KRW 6.50,000. After F’s death, H demanded H to repair the instant store, and requested H to get off the monthly rent. He understood the Defendant’s circumstances, H, from September 2009 to KRW 550,00,000, based on the understanding of the Defendant’s situation.

(2) On September 30, 2015, the Defendant is currently pushing ahead of the monthly rent of KRW 4,950,000, which is sealed to the Plaintiffs.

(3) At the same time a defense of simultaneous performance is made against the lease deposit.

3. The fact that the Defendant’s termination of the instant lease agreement was in arrears for at least two years after March 2015 is without dispute between the parties, and the fact that the duplicate of the instant complaint containing an expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was served on the Defendant on July 29, 2015 is recorded.