1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the principal lawsuit shall be modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The court's explanation on 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 by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The reasoning of the court’s judgment as to the claim on the merits is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for cases of cutting down or adding as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Nos. 15 through 21 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows.

The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day after the duplicate of the instant complaint was served on each of the above money. In the event that a contract is cancelled, both parties’ duty to restore the said money simultaneously is in a simultaneous performance relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764, Jul. 10, 2001). The Defendant’s duty to return the said money, etc. and the Plaintiff’s duty to restore the instant store. According to each of the statements or images stated in the evidence Nos. 21 and 22, according to the fact that, on February 5, 2018, a business report was made with respect to the instant store in the name of “G” (the beginning date of business is February 5, 2018).

() At least it is reasonable to deem that the instant store was restored to its original state and delivered to the Defendant at least on February 5, 2018, the sign of the front and side signboard, etc. of the instant store is currently replaced to “G”. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay incurred from February 5, 2018 to the Plaintiff for each of the said money.” After the last page (21) of the first instance judgment of the first instance, “the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the time for the payment of the rent from November 15, 2015, as the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the time for the payment of the rent from November 15, 2015 to June 30, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that only unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from May 15, 2016 to June 30, 2016 under the instant agreement should be recognized.