1. The appeal filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The first instance court rendered a judgment citing part of the Plaintiff’s claim on the principal lawsuit and citing the Defendant’s claim on the counterclaim.

Therefore, since only the defendant appealed against the principal lawsuit of the judgment of the court of first instance, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the principal lawsuit, and the part concerning the counterclaim is excluded from the scope of the judgment of this court.

2. The grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part falling under the scope of the judgment of the court in this case as seen earlier) shall be cited as the grounds of this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

However, as set forth in paragraph 3 below, the defendant added to the judgment on the argument made by this court.

3. Additional determination as to the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion 1) Even after the expiration of the lease term of the instant commercial building, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant in the instant commercial building and delivered it to the Defendant on September 30, 2017. The lease relationship existed until the delivery date of the instant commercial building, and the Plaintiff’s overdue rent up to that time reaches the 18th period. Such circumstance refers to the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act (hereinafter “Commercial Building Lease Protection Act”).

(1) As the Plaintiff falls under Article 10-4 (1) and Article 10 (1) 1, the Plaintiff cannot claim to the Defendant the opportunity to recover the premium (hereinafter “claim”).

(2) Even if not, the amount of damages equivalent to the premium recognized by the first instance court, even if not, should be reduced in consideration of the fact that the amount of damages exceeds 30 months of rent under the instant lease agreement.

(hereinafter referred to as “B argument”). (b)

① Determination on the assertion 1: (a) the lease agreement of this case terminated on June 16, 2016; (b) the Plaintiff continued to operate a restaurant in the instant commercial building even after the lease agreement was terminated; and (c) delivered the instant commercial building to the Defendant on September 30, 2017, as seen earlier; and (d) the Plaintiff from November 16, 2015 to January 15, 2016, the lease agreement of this case was terminated.