1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, the appointed party) and the appointed party shall indicate their attached real estate from each Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 9, 2013, in order to operate a general restaurant, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants from September 5, 2013 to September 5, 2015 (hereinafter in this case the instant lease agreement) with respect to the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,00, and the lease agreement with respect to the portion of KRW 50,000,00 in the attached drawings among the real estate marked in the attached real estate owned by the Defendants, which are attached to each of the items in sequence (a).

B. On September 5, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the remainder of KRW 8,000,000 among the lease deposit on the date of the contract, and paid KRW 6,500,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s store in delivery of the instant store, and performed a test for general restaurant operation.

C. Although the Plaintiff was seeking to obtain a general restaurant business license, it was not possible to obtain a business license since the previous lessee’s business registration was not cancelled.

On December 12, 2013, the Plaintiff was unable to obtain permission for general restaurant business due to the former lessee’s business registration, and thus, it cannot use and profit from the instant store. Therefore, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate indicating the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 14, fact inquiry result of this court, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Since the Defendant, a lessor, was well aware of the fact that the Plaintiff intended to make a general restaurant at the time of concluding the lease contract of this case, the Plaintiff is obligated to allow the Plaintiff to obtain permission to operate a general restaurant at the store of this case.

Nevertheless, since the Defendant did not resolve the business registration problem of the previous lessee, the Plaintiff could not obtain a general restaurant business license at the instant store, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant, as a lessor, violated the lessee’s duty to allow the use and profit-making of the leased object.

The Plaintiff.