1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) pays KRW 287,460 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be the opposing defendant.

The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be judged together.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 14, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,000,000, and the lease period from February 14, 2013 to February 14, 2014.

B. On February 24, 2013, the Defendant completed the business registration and operated a restaurant after completing the business registration of the instant commercial building.

C. On February 14, 2017, the said lease was renewed several times under the same conditions even after the expiration of the term, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded the lease agreement with respect to the instant commercial building by setting the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 2,300,000 (payment after February 20, 2018) and the lease term of February 20, 2018.

(hereinafter “the lease of this case”). D.

From July 2017 to the expiration date of the lease term of this case, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the intention of lease transfer along with the intent to terminate the lease by text message and mail. On May 23, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease of this case on the ground that the lease of this case was delayed for more than three years.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. (1) According to the above facts, the lease of this case was terminated on February 20, 2018, which is the expiration date by the Defendant’s declaration of refusal to renew the lease, and thus, it is difficult to believe that the lease was implicitly renewed because the Plaintiff failed to receive the Defendant’s declaration of refusal to renew the lease (it is difficult to believe that the lease was implicitly renewed), and the Defendant is obliged to return the commercial building of this case to the Plaintiff.

(2) On the other hand, in addition to the respective descriptions and videos of Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 7, Eul evidence Nos. 5, 10, 12, and 13 (including each number), the defendant discontinued the business of the commercial building of this case on or around February 20, 2018, and the fact that the defendant moved out.