1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is entitled to KRW 63,083,014 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant, setting a deposit of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 220,000 (excluding value-added tax), monthly management fee of KRW 220,000,000, and January 8, 2017 with regard to the third floor (hereinafter “the instant cartel”) among the buildings listed in the attached list, which were owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant operated the instant cartel with the trade name “Curel” from around that time.

B. On September 23, 2016 and August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a written notification stating that “the instant lease contract is terminated due to the delinquency in rent.”

C. On July 19, 2017, D, a director of the Plaintiff’s internal director and the manager of the building above, prevented the Defendant from using water valves on the fourth floor of the building above, and prevented the Defendant from using water. D, on October 20, 2017, received a summary order of KRW 1 million (2017 high-level 648) from the official residential support of the Daejeon District Court, and on December 1, 2017, the said summary order became final and conclusive by withdrawing the request for a mental trial.

On November 27, 2017, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a notice to the effect that “the instant lease agreement is terminated because it is impossible to use the instant telecom due to short water.”

E. On October 18, 2018, the entire building including the instant telecom had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the FF due to the sale by voluntary auction (Seoul District Court official support E).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 7, and 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not delay the instant franchise from May 2016 to July 2016 for at least three months. The Plaintiff, on the ground of this, declared that the contract was terminated to the Defendant on September 23, 2016 and August 8, 2017. Thus, the instant lease contract was terminated around that time. However, the Defendant did not object to the Plaintiff.