1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) Attached Form 1, 2, 3.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 26, 2012, the Plaintiff purchased from the Defendant the building indicated in the separate sheet No. C (hereinafter “instant building”) from Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 6, 2012.

B. On September 16, 201, the Defendant entered into a lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the trade name as D in the instant building. On April 6, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on a deposit of KRW 10,000,000 for the first column store on the right side of the first floor (hereinafter “instant store”) of the instant building, and from May 1, 201 to May 1, 2014, the monthly rent of KRW 600,000 (the last day of each month, payment from June 6, 2012, payment of monthly rent and water supply charges).

C. From February 2013, the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff a monthly rent and water supply fee under the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease by delivering a copy of the instant complaint on the grounds that the Defendant was in arrears with two or more occasions, and the said complaint reached the Defendant on October 28, 2013.

On the other hand, the defendant suspended the above D business from July 23, 2013 to the date of the closing of argument.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, Eul No. 2, 3, and 5, E’s testimony, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion did not pay rent of KRW 1.2 million after the Defendant paid the monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million on February 5, 2013, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 639,720 on behalf of the Defendant, such as KRW 108,560, and electricity charges.

The plaintiff terminated the lease contract of this case on the ground that the service of the duplicate of the complaint of this case was not paid at the second time (Article 4 of the lease contract). Thus, the defendant is the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.