1. The counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to KRW 31,835,960 on August 2, 2018.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff held office as a director of the Defendant from April 29, 2014 to April 29, 2017, and held 10% of the shares issued by the Defendant. 2) On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a deposit of KRW 100 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000 for the building indicated in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “instant building”), which is owned by the Plaintiff, to the Defendant on May 1, 2014, with the term of lease from May 1, 2014 to April 30, 2019.

3) After the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant is operating a place of business in the instant building, which is engaged in agricultural products distribution business, etc., and each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 (hereinafter “instant land”).

(4) On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document evidencing that “The instant lease agreement is terminated on the grounds of the delinquency of rent for at least three years,” which read, around April 30, 2017.”

5) The date of the Defendant’s payment of rent and the amount are as indicated in the attached Form. According to this, the Defendant delayed to pay rent for at least three months as of April 30, 2017. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim 1, it is reasonable to view that the instant lease agreement was terminated on April 30, 2017 by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the ground of not less than three years of delinquency in rent.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

In addition, as seen earlier, the Defendant uses and benefits from the instant building until now, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, as requested by the Plaintiff, is in arrears or rent equivalent to the rent, and is part of unjust enrichment.