1. The counterclaim claim against the counterclaim Defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit incurred by a counterclaim;

1. The summary of the case ① On October 14, 2015, the Counterclaim Plaintiff operated the restaurant in the name of “E” by leasing part of the first and second floors of the Seoul Yangcheon-gu Seoul Ground Building (hereinafter “Building”) from the Counterclaim Defendant on a leased basis.

② As the counterclaim delayed the payment of rent, etc., the counterclaim Defendant terminated the lease contract, and subsequently was rendered a favorable judgment by filing a lawsuit against the counterclaim, such as the name of the building, etc.

(Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017Da261941 Decided July 7, 2017, Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2017Na5920 Decided February 22, 2018, and Supreme Court Decision 2018Da228288 Decided August 16, 2018). The lease termination date stated in the above judgment is February 19, 2017.

③ On July 2017, where the foregoing case was pending, the Plaintiff entered the rooftop of the building and installed the structure as a panel, and resided in the sclimbus.

④ Accordingly, the counterclaim Defendant installed a corrective device to prevent the Plaintiff from entering the rooftop.

⑤ The counterclaim Defendant sought removal and delivery of the rooftop structure against the counterclaim Plaintiff as the principal lawsuit in the instant case, and the counterclaim filed the instant counterclaim.

(Counterclaim) In addition to the claim for consolation money of this case, there was a part of “the date set by mutual agreement and opening and closing the rooftop entrance which was closed so that the counterclaim Defendant may bring goods related to the counterclaim during the rooftop of the building to the counterclaim.” In addition to the claim for consolation money of this case, the part of the claim for opening the rooftop entrance was withdrawn among the counterclaims filed by the counterclaim Defendant and the counterclaims.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 4, 6, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The summary of the first counterclaim claim as to the counterclaim claim had entered the rooftop of the building with the consent of the counter-defendant, and managed it.

Nevertheless, the counterclaim Defendant arbitrarily prevented the entrance of the rooftop where the counterclaim is residing.