1. The appeal filed by the Counterclaim Plaintiff is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Counterclaim Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The counterclaim asserts that the counterclaim Defendant is obliged to pay the 30 million won to the Counterclaim Plaintiff since the lease contract between the Counterclaim Defendant and the Counterclaim Defendant was terminated. The counterclaim Defendant is obligated to pay the said 30 million won to the Counterclaim Plaintiff as the Counterclaim Defendant leased the real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3 (a receipt, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the authenticity of the above document is recognized), Eul evidence No. 11, and the whole pleadings, the evidence submitted by the counter-party to the counter-party is solely liable to return the above 30 million won to the counter-party to the counter-party to the counter-party.

It is not sufficient to recognize that there is a duty to compensate for damage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On November 24, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed not to require the counterclaim Defendant to return the amount of the right to the instant real estate, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 3.7 million, and the lease term of KRW 3.7 million from January 20, 201 to January 19, 2016 (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(Article 2). (2) Article 5 of the Special Agreement provides that “The Lessee shall bear a KRW 3,000 won per day at present for the name of the tenant and other expenses.”

③ The Plaintiff asserted that if the instant contract is terminated by a licensed real estate agent who arranged the conclusion of the instant contract, the counterclaim Defendant was confirmed to return KRW 30 million. However, there is no objective data to support the instant contract.

④ The Lessee did not leave the instant real estate during the term of lease, and the instant case occurred after January 19, 2016, which is the expiration date.