1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

A. From 11,418,00 won to 11,418,000 won from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) March 2015.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 10, 2010, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant store, set the instant store as KRW 30,000,000 for lease deposit, KRW 1,200,00 for monthly rent, and KRW 30,000 for lease deposit, respectively, and received KRW 30,00,000 from the Defendant around that time.

B. On February 23, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant with each of the terms of KRW 30,000,000 for the instant store, KRW 1,400,00 for the monthly rent, and KRW 1,400 for the term of lease until March 9, 2014 for the instant store.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

Accordingly, the Defendant continued to operate a cafeteria with the trade name “C” at the instant store without changing the lease deposit previously paid to the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.

However, even though the lease term of this case expired on March 9, 2014, the defendant operated the above restaurant at the store of this case and occupied and used it until the date of closing argument of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 7 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Demand for principal lawsuit:

A. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant lease agreement was terminated on March 9, 2014 due to the expiration of the lease term, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to order the Plaintiff to order the instant store.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff cannot be ordered to order the instant store until receiving KRW 30,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant for lease deposit, and this is deemed as having a relationship of simultaneous performance with the Defendant’s obligation to specify the store of this case. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Defendant.