The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

purport, purport, and.

1. The summary of the case and the facts premised on the case

A. Although the Plaintiff terminated the lease contract between the Defendant and the Defendant on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, etc., the instant lawsuit is to seek the return of the leased object on the grounds of the exclusion of disturbance or termination of the lease contract based on ownership, as well as the return of the leased object on the grounds of the termination of the lease contract, by asserting that the Defendant occupied and used the leased object as it is, and thereby, incurred damages equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff. In addition, the instant lawsuit is to seek the return of the leased object on the grounds of the exclusion of disturbance or the termination of the lease contract based on ownership, and to pay the rent of KRW 30 million in arrears (the amount calculated by deducting the lease deposit received by the Plaintiff from the rent of KRW 42 million in delay), the delayed payment thereof, and the return of unjust enrichment equivalent

The counterclaim of this case is a case seeking compensation of KRW 11,9710,000 and damages for delay based on nonperformance or tort, by asserting that the Plaintiff did not perform its duty to provide consulting, and that the land on which real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “N buildings”) is located was designated as a development restriction area and a water source protection area under the Water Supply and Waterworks Installation Act (hereinafter “Development Restriction Zone Act”) and could not be used for the Defendant’s business, although the Defendant concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to provide consulting on the Defendant’s business, not for the Plaintiff, but for the Defendant’s business.

The judgment of the court of first instance accepted the plaintiff's claim of the principal suit and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim on the grounds that the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was lawfully terminated, and the plaintiff could not be seen as belonging to the defendant.

The defendant appealed against this.

B. On the premise, 【Evidence” 1-1, 2, 3, 4, 2, and 3-1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 9-1, 2, 3, and 11 of A-1-1.