1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received the money from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the attached property first floor at the same time.

1. The fact that the lease of the principal claim was terminated by the expiration of the period on May 26, 2015, and the fact that the Defendant did not pay the amount equivalent to the previous rent from November 27, 2015 is not a dispute. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, a claim seeking the return of the object and the payment of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent due to the termination of the lease is reasonable.

2. Judgment on counterclaim

(a) The balance of the deposit after deducting unjust gains equivalent to the rent in arrears for which a request for the return of deposit has been made shall be paid simultaneously with the return of the object;

B. 1) The Defendant asserted that the premium equivalent to the premium was claimed 1) but the Defendant did not receive the premium from C by refusing to renew the lease with the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant expressed to the Defendant that the Plaintiff refused to renew the lease with the Defendant that he would pay 60 million won premium, along with the Defendant’s intent to rent the instant store and operate the convenience store. The Defendant arranged to the Plaintiff as a new lessee, and the Defendant agreed to the Plaintiff as a new lessee, but the Plaintiff refused to lease with the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff refused to enter into a lease contract with the new lessee, without any justifiable reason, and the Plaintiff refused to enter into a lease contract with the lessee (Article 10-4 (1) 4 and (3) 2 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act).

Since there is no restriction on the method of good faith, the tenant is required to contact the lessor and the new lessee directly by face-to-face or communication (if the tenant refuses to contact itself), and the lessee is required to inform the lessor that there is a specific new lessee who wants the lease.

Defendant.