Text
1. The counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall be dismissed.
2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. We examine the legality of the Defendant’s counterclaim ex officio by determining the legality of the counterclaim.
The defendant's counterclaim claim was filed after the pleadings of the principal lawsuit have been concluded, and it is clear that the procedures of the principal lawsuit will be considerably delayed on the grounds as examined in the following paragraph 3, and thus, it failed to meet the requirements for the counterclaim
The defendant's counterclaim shall be dismissed as it is illegal.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim
A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, the following facts may be acknowledged:
On May 28, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement that leases real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant in KRW 20,000,000,000 for lease deposit, monthly rent, KRW 1,550,00.
While the term of lease was from June 23, 2008 to June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to guarantee the Defendant’s goodwill for five years.
After June 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement to lease the instant real estate again to the Defendant by setting the lease period from the delivery date (the delivery date on June 23, 2013) to 24 months, and the Defendant continued to use the instant real estate.
Thus, as the period of the agreed lease contract expires on June 22, 2015, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff.
B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserts that: (a) Party A’s certificate of No. 2 was forged; and (b) Party B’s lease agreement was a certificate No. 1; and (c) according to the special terms and conditions of the said certificate No. 1, the Plaintiff agreed to the Defendant to guarantee the business for five years.
However, according to the appraiser C's appraisal result, the defendant's stamp image affixed on Gap's No. 2 lease agreement cannot be deemed to have been forged because it is the same as the reported seal imprint, and Gap's No. 2 and Eul's No. 1 are the same kind of penmatic body and seal.