1. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff filed a principal lawsuit against the Defendant, and the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for a counterclaim, and the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor succeeded to the lawsuit.

The plaintiff did not consent to the defendant's withdrawal application.

The first instance court accepted part of the plaintiff's main claim and dismissed the remainder, and all of the defendant's counterclaim and the defendant's succeeding intervenor's counterclaim were dismissed.

Accordingly, only the defendant succeeding intervenor appealed.

Therefore, the Defendant and the part of the Plaintiff were transferred to the lower court, but this Court’s trial scope is limited to the counterclaim of the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor (before the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor reduced the purport of the claim against the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor). 2. The reason why this court is stated in this part of the basic facts is the same as the part of the first instance judgment’s “1. Recognition.” As such, the basic facts are included in the summary of Article 420 of the

3. Determination as to the counterclaim by the defendant succeeding intervenor

A. On November 201, 2011, the Plaintiff, without the Defendant’s consent, changed the structure of the instant store’s corridor, toilet, etc., without permission, and installed internal equipment and materials, thereby violating the lease agreement. Accordingly, on December 14, 201, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the termination of the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff was obligated to deliver the instant store to the Defendant by December 21, 201 pursuant to Article 10(3) of the instant lease agreement, but did not perform the obligation, but delivered the said store on January 6, 201. The Plaintiff was obligated to deliver the said store to the Defendant by December 21, 201, and the Plaintiff was obligated (hereinafter referred to as the “claim on the premise of the Plaintiff’s unauthorized possession”). The Plaintiff is obligated against the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “claim”) as follows:

(A) Pursuant to Article 10(3) of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff: (a) KRW 176,14,516 (=2 times the agreed rent 6,824,00 (two times the agreed rent 6,912,00) x [12 months from December 22, 2011).