1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the incidental appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s establishment of a lease contract is 2.94 square meters (the real estate indicated in paragraph 3(a) of this case) among the buildings listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (Seoul Gwangjin-gu, Seoul E, F ground offices and stores), 126.94 square meters (hereinafter “instant leased buildings”).

(2) On January 15, 201, the Defendant and the Defendant agreed to lease a lease contract with a term of KRW 10 million, KRW 800,000 per month, and KRW 800,000 per month, and the term of lease from February 15, 2011 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

A) A lessee was the co-defendant B of the first instance trial, who is the son’s own name at the Defendant’s request. 2) Meanwhile, the real estate lease agreement (Evidence A) drafted in this context states, “The lessee may remodel or alter the lease with the approval of the lessor, but shall restore the property to its original state at the lessee’s expense before the date of return of the real estate is printed in the fluorial letter,” and the special agreement stipulates, “Additional tax, public charges shall not be reported for six months (not later than six months), and the outside repair shall be accepted by the lessee, and the cost of the building name city shall not be claimed (to the extent of the legal part) even after the date on which the lessee was arranged.”

B. Since the lease contract of this case, the Defendant had resided in the leased building of this case and operated the clothing sales business. B did not occupy and use the leased building of this case.

C. However, on April 29, 2011, May 30, 2011, and June 30, 2011, the Defendant only paid a total of three instances of rent to the Plaintiff, but did not pay the remainder of rent, etc. on the ground that on the same ground, the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease contract was served on the Defendant on December 22, 201.

(Clearly, it is obvious that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition. The plaintiff Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant's special contract on value-added tax among the lease contract.