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

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is attached to the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant, and (1).

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part 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 parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease agreement was concluded on April 1, 2014, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff and pay unjust enrichment or damages equivalent to the overdue rent and rent.

B. Defendant’s assertion 1) requested the Plaintiff to reduce or exempt the rent for 2014 year, but D, an employee in charge of the Plaintiff, could not reduce the rent, but the Plaintiff’s termination of the instant lease agreement and re-contracts at low rents through re-tenders only formally notified that it would be possible to terminate the instant lease agreement and immediately terminate the instant lease agreement on the following day after the Defendant’s notification of waiver was notified. As such, Defendant’s notification of waiver of the lease agreement as of March 31, 2014 and Plaintiff’s notification of termination as of April 1, 2014 constitutes a false declaration of intention known that both parties are not advanced. 2) As such, even if the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of the instant lease becomes null and void, the Plaintiff clearly refused to implement the lease agreement while requesting the Defendant to remove the facility, and the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay unjust enrichment or damages.

3) The Defendant’s obligation to return the instant building to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the deposit to the Defendant are in the simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, as long as the Plaintiff offered the Defendant to perform the deposit to the Defendant and the Defendant did not lose the Defendant’s right of defense of simultaneous performance, possession of the instant building does not constitute illegal possession even after the termination of the lease agreement. 4)