1. The defendant (Counterclaim) is simultaneously with the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant).

1. On March 7, 2013, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement that leases the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiffs and the Defendant to the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) by setting the deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2750,000 (including value-added tax), and the period from April 5, 2013 to 24 months from April 5, 2013.

In the instant lease contract, the special agreement is stipulated in paragraph 8 in relation to the parking lot, stating that the “public site on the right-hand side of the building (hereinafter “the instant public site”) is used as a restaurant parking lot prior to the date of the D project in king-si. In the event of a dispute over the parking lot, the lessor is at the time of mediation, and the lessor is at the time of a dispute over the parking lot.” The instant lease contract is written as follows: “In the event of an extension in the road, the current place of the iron store (hereinafter “the present space of the iron store”) shall be used as the parking lot by the lessee; and the Defendant’s seal is affixed on the side of the portion written in the above finger language.”

After that, the Plaintiffs occupied the instant real estate and operated a restaurant business (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

Since October 31, 2016, the E-building (hereinafter “instant building”) to which the instant real estate belongs and the three parts of the instant public land were parked on a road, and it became impossible to use it as a parking lot.

However, on April 2016, the Defendant leased the iron store space to a third party by setting the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.5 million, and the lease period of KRW 4 years.

Accordingly, on September 2, 2016, the Plaintiffs asserted that the remaining site for the parking lot was impossible for the instant restaurant business to the Defendant, and provided notification of the termination of the instant rental contract on the ground of the Defendant’s breach of the obligation to enter into an agreement, and did not pay the vehicle after October 1, 2016.

On the other hand, the defendant delayed the payment of rent from October 1, 2016 to October 1, 2017 of this case.