1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) receives KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. On November 9, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant and the Plaintiff to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease contract”) with the term from November 9, 2012 to November 8, 2014, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million, monthly tax of KRW 1.3 million, monthly tax of KRW 1.3 million, and the term of lease from November 9, 2012 to November 8, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease”).

around that time, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 10 million and occupied the commercial building of this case, and operates the “C” mutually with the name of “C.”

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff refused to renew the instant lease agreement with the Defendant on May 17, 2017, when the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that the delivery of the instant commercial building after November 8, 2018, which was the expiration date of the lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. 1) According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, since the instant lease agreement has expired after the lapse of November 8, 2017 and expired, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s judgment on the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff with the deposit for the instant lease deposit, and the instant lease agreement has expired after the expiration of the period of termination, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the said KRW 10 million to the Defendant. Therefore, the duty to deliver the instant commercial building and the obligation to return the said deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship.

Therefore, the defendant's above defense is accepted.

3. The defendant is obligated to deliver the commercial building of this case to the plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 10 million from the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The defendant asserted by the plaintiff 1 as to the main defense of the plaintiff's main defense has interfered with the plaintiff's opportunity to recover the premium.