1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)

(a) Indication 1, 2, and 2 of the attached list among the buildings listed in the attached list;

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 201, the Plaintiffs entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendants on a deposit deposit of KRW 3,00,000,00, KRW 20,000, KRW 200,00 from April 1, 201 to April 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a store of KRW 12.78 square meters in the part (A) of the store of KRW 102 and KRW 12.78,00 (hereinafter “instant store”). Although the size of leased object was entered in the evidence No. 4, taking into account the purport of the argument in the evidence No. 6, it appears that a licensed real estate agent E entered into a lease agreement in error at the time of preparation of the lease agreement. The intent agreed between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants on leased object is to pay the lease agreement of this case (hereinafter “instant store”).

B. The Defendants did not pay a vehicle after February 1, 2012, and the Plaintiffs notified the intent to terminate the instant lease by delivering a copy of the instant complaint.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Defendants asserted that, as the instant store was unable to conduct business due to water leakage, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants agreed not to pay rent until a water leakage system is resolved, as well as the portion on April 201 and June 201, among rent, there is no obligation to pay rent. In addition, the Defendants asserted that the water leakage occurred due to defective construction works of the Plaintiffs at the time of constructing the instant store, and that there is no obligation to pay rent.

According to the video and the purport of the entire pleading in Eul evidence No. 4, the fact that leakage occurred at the store of this case can be acknowledged, but the statements and images of evidence Nos. 3 and 10 and other evidence submitted by the Defendants alone are the fact that the plaintiffs agreed not to receive the rent due to leakage.