1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, the appointed party) is from March 23, 2019 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s KRW 5,000,000 and its amount.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the designated parties are co-owners of Ftels on the land outside E in light of the name of the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

B. On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff leased G units of the instant officetel (hereinafter “instant officetel”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 4.3 million per month, KRW 5,000 per month, and KRW 55,00 per month, and the term of lease from February 16, 2017 to February 15, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff the lease deposit, and began to reside with the instant officetel transferred from the Plaintiff.

C. On May 10, 2018, the Defendant filed an application for the registration of the housing lease with the Seoul District Court 2018Kaoman14 (Seoul District Court 2018Kasan-si) regarding the instant officetel, and completed the lease registration at that time.

On June 5, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited the said money with the Defendant as the principal deposit in accordance with Article 487 of the Civil Act, alleging that the amount of KRW 3,239,510 would remain when deducting the rent, etc. from the amount of KRW 5 million of the instant lease deposit to the time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. On December 26, 2017, 201, the Plaintiff asserted the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to overdue rent and rent by 1 Plaintiff’s mother, the Defendant, through her mother, told the Plaintiff to contact the Plaintiff with the director and seek a new lessee, prior to the expiration of the instant lease term.

However, since December 30, 2017, people who intend to become new tenants visited the instant officetel several times to view the instant officetel, but the Defendant did not open the door while continuing to reside in the instant officetel.

In addition, on March 28, 2018, the defendant requested the return of the lease deposit and the plaintiff's agent found in the officetel of this case.