1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) is about 15,000.

1. Common facts in the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the amount of KRW 1,140 square meters for the period from December 1, 2012 to December 1, 2015, 2015, including the leased portion, from the previous owner of the electric industry (hereinafter “non-party company”) to the previous owner of the electric industry (hereinafter “non-party company”) at KRW 30,000,000 per annum for the period from December 1 to December 1, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s period of the lease on June 24, 2013 is the same year.

7. From January 2 to June 30, 2015, a sub-lease contract was concluded with a set of KRW 15,000,000 for a security deposit, and KRW 2,200,00 for a rent.

C. After that, the said sub-lease contract was terminated at the expiration of the period.

However, the Defendant continued to possess the leased portion even after the expiration of the above period, and paid the Plaintiff the said rent from February 2016 to the non-party company by agreement between the Plaintiff and the non-party company and the defendant, and completed the delivery of the leased portion on March 15, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 13, and 15 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) or the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the contract for sub-lease expires at the expiration of the period, the defendant is obligated to deliver the leased part and return the illegal gains equivalent to the rent from the termination to the delivery date.

As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant paid the rent even after the termination of the above contract is the fact that the Defendant completed the delivery of the leased part. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim on a different premise is without merit.

3. As seen earlier, the fact that the sub-lease contract on the counter-claim has expired due to the expiration of the period is examined. As such, the Plaintiff’s above deposit of KRW 15,00,000 to the Defendant after the delivery date, and the Plaintiff’s service of the written application for modification of the purpose of the counter-claim and the cause of the claim sought by the Defendant, from April 5, 2017 to the day of full payment.