1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is KRW 20,650,280.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 7, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease of the land for a factory and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) of Sejong Special Self-Governing City as KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million (in advance payment, value-added tax was increased by KRW 1.60,000,00,000, including value-added tax, from September 201 to September 201) and the lease term of KRW 24 months, and on October 4, 2011, the Plaintiff transferred the instant real estate to the Defendant and received the said lease deposit from the Defendant.

B. As the Plaintiff did not pay a rent for more than two months at the time of April 2013, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated on April 11, 2013.

C. The Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at latest on May 29, 2013.

[The plaintiff also recognizes the defendant's relocation of his/her place of business before it according to the content certificate (Evidence A2-3) sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on May 30, 2013.] [The ground for recognition] / The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, Gap's evidence 2-1, 3, and Gap's evidence 9, the testimony by the witness E of the party at the trial, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. According to the above facts finding that the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated in accordance with the Defendant’s delinquency in rent for a period of more than two years and the Plaintiff’s termination notification, and the Defendant requested the Defendant to deduct the unpaid monthly rent from the lease deposit on January 2013, and thus, the Defendant did not delay the rent without any reason. Therefore, the Defendant asserted that the termination of the lease contract based on the Defendant’s delinquency in rent is unfair. However, the Defendant did not have any cause of delinquency solely on the ground that the lease deposit paid to the Plaintiff exists and the Plaintiff can be deducted from the monthly rent.

Since it cannot be justified or justified, the defendant's above assertion is justified.