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

(a) Of the real estate listed in the attached list, 480.15 square meters of the ground floor.

1. Determination as to the main claim

A. On April 1, 2014, the Plaintiff recognized the cause of the claim (i) part of 480.15 square meters on the underground floor among the buildings indicated in the Defendant and the attached Table list (hereinafter “instant leased buildings”) on April 1, 2014.

(B) The term of the lease deposit is set at KRW 10,00,000 for the lease deposit, KRW 1,200,00 for the monthly rent (excluding value-added tax); and the term of the lease is set at April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015 for the lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

A) Around that time, the Plaintiff concluded a contract, and the Plaintiff handed over the instant leased building to the Defendant. From April 1, 2015 to November 30, 2015, the Defendant requested that the Plaintiff pay the instant leased building. On October 6, 2015, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to withdraw from the instant leased building on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of rent for at least three consecutive periods. [Grounds for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s right to rescind the instant leased building was created by failing to pay the rent for at least two consecutive periods during the renewed lease period, based on the above facts found as follows: (a) evidence No. 12, No. 12, No. 4, No. 5-1, and No. 5-5; and (b) the purport of the entire pleadings, even if the instant lease was renewed one year after the expiration of the period of March 31, 2015 under the same conditions.

The instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on October 2015, when the notice of termination was delivered to the Defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant leased building to the Plaintiff and pay the unpaid rent and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to future rent to the Plaintiff by the completion date of delivery of the said building.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s argument 1 as to the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant did not pay for three-months corresponding to that amount, since the Defendant paid the repair cost on behalf of the Plaintiff, as the water leakage and damp season incurred in the instant leased building for three-month period from July 2014 to September 2014.