1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) added to the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.

1. The judgment on the defendant's counterclaim may file a counterclaim with the court in which the principal lawsuit has been pending, not later than the closure of pleadings, only where it does not substantially delay the litigation procedures (Article 269 of the Civil Procedure Act). It is evident that the defendant filed a counterclaim after the pleadings of the principal lawsuit of this case have been concluded.

In addition to the plaintiff, any counterclaim that is made by adding a third party to the plaintiff is not permitted in principle.

Ultimately, the defendant's counterclaim is unlawful and dismissed.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. Basic facts 1) On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on July 17, 2015, the rooftop room on the rooftop of real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant rooftop room”) to the Defendant.

(2) From July 26, 2015 to July 26, 2015, the term of lease was set at two years, one million won of the lease deposit, one million won of the monthly rent, and the 26th day of the monthly rent. (2) The Defendant paid the Plaintiff one million won of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff by July 17, 2015, and was appointed to the rooftop bank on July 19, 2015.

3) On October 1, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement by means of content-certified mail on the grounds that the lease agreement was unpaid for more than two months. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, and each of the entry (including the serial number) in the evidence A1 or 3 (including the serial number).

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant’s lease agreement with the Plaintiff are unpaid and terminated at least two months. As such, the Defendant delivered the instant rooftop to the Plaintiff, and paid an amount equivalent to KRW 100,000 per month from July 26, 2015 to delivery, with unjust enrichment equivalent to the monthly rent or monthly rent. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff unilaterally demanded the Defendant to leave from the date immediately after the Defendant moved in the instant rooftop, and that the Defendant did not inform the Defendant of the account number again in order to pay the monthly rent by losing the Plaintiff’s account number received from the Plaintiff.

Defendant.