1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) simultaneously with the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Basic facts common to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim;

A. On October 17, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) with regard to the lease deposit of KRW 50 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease period from November 7, 201 to November 7, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff has extended the lease period of KRW 1.6 million as the monthly rent and KRW 1.73 million as of November 6, 2015 by one year.

B. On August 30, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that the instant lease contract was terminated on November 7, 2016, and that the said contract was terminated at the expiration of the period, and that the Plaintiff requested the return of the instant store.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the judgment on the claim for main lawsuit, the instant lease contract was terminated on November 7, 2016 according to the Plaintiff’s legitimate refusal of renewal, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff upon reinstatement.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff refused to enter into a lease agreement with the new lessee arranged by the defendant without justifiable grounds, and violated the duty to protect the opportunity to recover the premium against the defendant, and that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case until the plaintiff performs the duty to compensate for damages due to the violation of the above duty to protect and the duty to return the lease deposit of this case.

With respect to the defense of simultaneous performance of the obligation to compensate for damages arising from the Defendant’s breach of the obligation to protect the opportunity to recover premiums, the obligation to compensate for damages is not recognized as follows, and even if the obligation to compensate for damages is recognized to the Plaintiff, the obligation and the Defendant’s all evidence submitted by the Defendant.