1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is simultaneously paid KRW 1,00,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

The principal counterclaim shall also be deemed to have been filed.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs are the owners of the instant building for which the registration of ownership transfer is completed under Article 28367 of the Busan District Court’s receipt of Geumcheon-gu District Court’s receipt of registration of ownership transfer on October 10 of the same year after purchasing from F the three multi-households with three floors of steel bars, bean, and brick bean, 112.36 square meters for one floor of neighborhood living facilities, 110.16 square meters for two floors, 10.16 square meters for three floors, 103.68 square meters for three floors, and 112.16 square meters for underground (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On September 18, 2014, the Defendant: (a) leased the leased object of this case from F, the former owner of the instant building, KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 112.16 square meters (hereinafter “the instant leased object”) up to September 25, 2016; and (b) concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs who succeeded to the said lease agreement up to September 25, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). Around December 2016, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs on the leased object of this case with the monthly rent of KRW 300,000 (the tenth day of each month), the lease period from January 10, 2017 to January 9, 2019 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”).

C. According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, the lessor stipulated that “if the lessee fails to pay the monthly rent at a second-time period, the lessor may terminate the lease agreement,” and the Defendant did not pay the monthly rent at the end, around September 12, 2017, the monthly rent of KRW 300,000.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 5-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lease contract of this case is terminated

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had expressed to the Plaintiffs the intent to terminate the instant lease agreement from February 2017, and thereafter, while continuously possessing the leased object of this case on the ground that the lessee who is entitled to the premium for the leased object of this case is in physical color, the Defendant continued to possess the leased object of this case on the condition that the goods and facilities within the leased object be installed on or before September 15, 2017.