1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) pays 14,650,000 won to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

2. The principal lawsuit of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an owner of 231 square meters in Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant leased the instant land, along with the building indicated in the attached list of the unregistered state on the ground of the instant land, owned the housing of one story of mentmens, bricks, and sludge, an unauthorized building.

C. The rent of the instant land is KRW 300,000 per annum (annual payment at the end of each year), and the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the rent by 2014.

On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) extinguished the right to use the instant land; and (b) demanded the Defendant to remove the instant land’s building and deliver the instant land; and (c) the Defendant demanded the Plaintiff to purchase the instant land’s building on July 16, 2016.

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

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim, the lease agreement between the source and the Defendant constitutes a lease agreement with no fixed time limit.

On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement, and it is apparent that the notification was delivered to the Defendant at that time and six months passed thereafter. As such, the lease agreement on the instant land was lawfully terminated around November 17, 2016 pursuant to Article 635 of the Civil Act.

The Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the lease agreement on the instant land on August 26, 2016 through the reference document for reference on June 7, 2018. As such, the notification of termination came into effect on February 26, 2017 when six months elapsed from the date of termination. The Defendant asserted that the lease agreement was terminated on the ground of the overdue rent, as the Defendant did not pay two or more rents. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff leased the instant land to the Defendant.