1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is simultaneously with the delivery of the buildings listed in the attached Table from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Evidence 【Evidence】1, A2, A3-1 through 3, A5-1 through 13, A7, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. (1) On July 10, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant, setting the monthly rent of KRW 1.9 million (payment on July 200, KRW 30 million, lease deposit, and KRW 60,000,000,000 from July 10, 2009, and instead of using all houses installed in the instant building, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8 million as premium to the Defendant in lieu of using any house units installed in the instant building, and agreed that the Defendant repair and repair the building if the Plaintiff demands construction to the Defendant due to the collapse of the building, natural disasters, or natural disasters.

(2) Around July 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 38 million to the Defendant with a lease deposit and premium.

(3) From August 2009, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant business with the trade name “D” in the instant building.

B. Since the Plaintiff’s total leakage of the instant building started to run a restaurant business for a long time, rainwater from the tent began to fall, and the degree of rainwater began to fall around June 2010, which became more serious.

Therefore, although the plaintiff requested repair of a tent to the defendant several times, the defendant did not take any measures.

C. The Plaintiff and the Defendant notified the Plaintiff on October 4, 2010 to pay the rent of KRW 11 million, out of the total rent of KRW 35 million from July 2009 to September 2010, as the Plaintiff did not pay the rent of KRW 24 million.

Accordingly, on November 23, 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a lease modification agreement with the Defendant to settle the unpaid rent of KRW 29 million and to lower the monthly rent of KRW 2.5 million from KRW 2.5 million.

2. The allegations by the parties and the judgment of this court

A. (1) Whether the claims for the return of lease deposit are established (A) lease deposit.