1. On the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant),

A. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) B: (a) KRW 33,00,000; and (b) from February 15, 2019 to May 15, 2019.

1. Basic facts common to the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. The Plaintiff is a person who entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B with respect to the 120.06 square meters of the first floor among the real estate listed in the attached Table, which was used as a restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); and the person who entered into a premium agreement with Defendant C with Defendant C; Defendant B is the owner of the entire building, including the instant restaurant; and Defendant C is a person who entered into the said premium agreement with the Plaintiff and transferred the goodwill, facility, and house to the Plaintiff upon entering into the said premium agreement with the Plaintiff.

B. According to the above lease agreement concluded on December 29, 2018 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the lease deposit is KRW 30 million (the intermediate deposit is KRW 3 million), monthly rent is KRW 1.4 million, and the lease term is from January 2, 2019 to January 2, 202.

C. Also, according to the premium contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C which entered into on the same day, the premium is KRW 45 million (the down payment of KRW 4 million) and the said premium includes all business facilities and equipment transfer cost.

On January 2, 2019, the Plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to Defendant B and the above premium to Defendant C, respectively, and was issued the keys to the instant restaurant.

E. On January 3, 2019, the following day, while cleaning the main floor of the instant restaurant, the Plaintiff discovered a septic tank which was placed in the steel board and became aware of the fact that the entire main room and the toilet part of the said restaurant were illegal buildings constructed without permission.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of response to the fact inquiry by the head of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "fact inquiry"), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. Regarding the claim against the defendant B (hereinafter in this paragraph, referred to as the "defendant"), Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and the fact-finding inquiry report, the whole purport of the pleadings is examined.