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

(a)(Attached 1) the real estate and equipment listed in paragraph 1 of the Schedule;

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. On May 1, 2018, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with Nonparty C on each real estate, equipment, and facilities listed in the list of paragraph (1) of [Attachment 1] with respect to the lease term from May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019, the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000,000, and the lease deposit of KRW 1,705,000 (including value-added tax) for the rent month.

The Defendant, on the ground of the leased object of this case, installed each facility listed in [Attachment 1] List 2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “facilities of this case”) on the ground of the leased object of this case and operated the Deputy Director.

On March 5, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with C on the acquisition of a lessor status under the instant lease agreement, and obtained consent from the Defendant on the transfer of the status.

The Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to renew the instant lease agreement on or around April 1, 2019, but the Defendant rejected it on or around April 7, 2019.

On the other hand, the defendant operated the above third Deputy Commissioner until the date of the closing of argument in this case, and paid the plaintiff the money equivalent to the monthly rent up to April 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry or video of Gap evidence 1, 4 through 10, entry of Eul evidence 2, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, and examine the above facts. The lease contract of this case terminated on April 30, 2019, and according to the Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the contract of this case was concluded to restore the leased object to its original state within 10 days after the termination of the lease contract under Article 10 of the lease contract of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to remove the facility of this case and deliver the leased object to the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the Defendant’s present lease object until the date of the closing of the argument in this case.