1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is simultaneously ordered from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the name of Seongdong-gu Seoul (D, 5 Dong 804).

On November 26, 2013, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the instant apartment owned by the Defendants from the Defendants to January 16, 2016, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 300 million; (b) from January 17, 2014 to January 16, 2016; (c) made an agreement with the Defendants on the following terms; and (d) paid the Defendants the down payment of KRW 30 million on the date of the contract:

Down payment of KRW 30 million shall be paid at the time of the contract and the balance of the receipt KRW 270 million shall be paid on January 17, 2014.

Article 8 If there is a default under this Agreement, the other party may give written notice to the default and rescind the contract.

The parties to a contract may claim damages to the other party arising from the rescission of contract.

Unless otherwise agreed, the down payment shall be regarded as penalty.

[Matters related to special agreement] One unit of collateral security (the maximum amount of claims 508,800,000- the Korea-China Credit Union) is set up on the current registration date, and the actual loan of KRW 120 million is set at KRW 120,000,000 in the contract until April 20, 2014, and the Plaintiff paid the Defendants KRW 270,000,000 in the remainder of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff, on January 17, 2014, received the apartment of this case from the Defendants and paid the Defendants KRW 20,000,000 in the remainder of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.

However, until April 20, 2014, the Defendants are “the establishment registration of a mortgage in the vicinity of the instant apartment” of the maximum debt amount of KRW 58.8 billion established on the instant apartment until April 20, 2014.

(1) On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff submitted the instant complaint stating the Defendants’ intent to terminate the instant lease agreement due to nonperformance. On February 10, 2015, the instant complaint was served on the Defendants on the grounds that there was no dispute [based on recognition], and the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including the serial number), and the purport of the entire pleadings.