1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) shall provide the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with real estate indicated in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

A. On November 21, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant under which the Plaintiff leases the instant real estate from the Defendant as two years from November 21, 2015 to November 21, 2017, with a deposit deposit amount of KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 605,00 (payment on the three advance payment from December 3, 2015) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On the same day, the Plaintiff paid KRW 5,00,000 to the Defendant on the same day.

B. The Plaintiff, while running a restaurant in the instant real estate, closed the business around October 2016.

[Reasons for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is liable for damages caused by the plaintiff's illegal act) established a chemical team in front of the real estate of this case before completion by the defendant, which requires landscaping in front of the real estate of this case under the Building Act. As a result, the plaintiff did not lease the real estate of this case for a long time since the time zone of the real estate of this case was obstructed and parking was impossible. The defendant removed the chemical team in violation of the Building Act before the conclusion of the lease contract of this case. Once the removal of chemical team was discovered, the order to restore the real estate of this case was issued from the original city to the original city to its original state, and the lease contract of this case was concluded between the plaintiff and the plaintiff. Nevertheless, since the conclusion of the lease contract of this case by the defendant's deceptive act constitutes a tort, the defendant is liable for compensating the plaintiff's damages caused by the conclusion of the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff was installed at KRW 340,00,200,00.60.