1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 10,738,389 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from October 3, 2016 to September 13, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 17, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building to the Defendant and E for the period from May 31, 2015 to May 31, 2020 with respect to the lease deposit and monthly rent from May 31, 2015 to May 31, 202 with respect to subparagraph 101 of the first floor among the instant real estate, KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 660,000, KRW 500,000 and monthly rent of KRW 310,000,000, and KRW 310,000,000 on April 2015 with respect to subparagraph 201 of the second floor among the instant real estate.

B. Around March 2015, the completion of the instant building was delayed, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the E changed the contents of the instant commercial building as of May 31, 2015, and thereafter agreed to re-transfer the lessee to Defendant 1.

C. From Apr. 2015, the Defendant started the Human Rights Building of the instant commercial building and closed the business on Jun. 18, 2015, but closed the business around December 2015. On Oct. 2, 2016, the Defendant restored the instant commercial building to its original state and transferred it to the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul 1-3, witness E's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not pay a monthly rent from July 2015 to October 2, 2016.

The unpaid monthly rent is KRW 10,738,387, which remains after deducting monthly rent, including the additional tax equivalent to 150,000,000 won from the total of the lease deposits to be refunded by the Plaintiff, which is 10,738,387.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that: (a) the Plaintiff entered F or G, a well-known brand, in the instant building; and (b) the president of the construction corporation actively recommended the Defendant and E to rent the instant commercial building on the third floor; and (c) the Defendant leased the instant commercial building; and (d) such content should be deemed to have been incorporated into the terms of the instant commercial building’s lease agreement.

However, the plaintiff's name is the building of this case.