1. The judgment of the first instance, including the counterclaim claim filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) added and reduced in the trial, is as follows:

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Facts of recognition

On December 29, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the building attached to the attached Form (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 50 million per month, KRW 1.5 million per month, the lease term from January 9, 2012 to January 8, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). At the end of the lease, the Plaintiff decided to restore the instant building to its original state, and not to claim against the Plaintiff the right to goodwill, premium, facility cost, etc.

Then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant raised the rent at KRW 1.7 million on December 28, 2013, and renewed the instant lease contract from January 9, 2014 to January 8, 2016. On January 9, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded that the lease period is increased by KRW 1.9 million per month and renewed the said contract by concluding an agreement from January 9, 2016 to January 9, 2017.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the renewal contract on January 9, 2016. On January 9, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not re-lease any more when the lease term expires, and deleted the provision on the waiver of the premium agreed upon as the special terms and conditions in the previous lease contract or renewal contract.

On December 9, 2016, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to deliver the instant building upon the expiration of the term of lease, but the Defendant refused to deliver it and operates a coffee shop with the trade name “C” in the instant building up to now.

[Ground of recognition] The lease contract of this case was terminated on January 9, 2017, according to the fact that there was no dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's Nos. 1 and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, and the judgment on the claim for delivery of the building of this case on the merits of the lawsuit

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

However, the defendant added the counterclaim claim claiming the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million at the same time as the above delivery obligation at the trial. This is the delivery of the building of this case by the plaintiff.