1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 8, among the buildings listed in the separate sheet No. 1 from the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.

Basic Facts

A. On October 6, 2011, the Plaintiff, among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list from the Defendant, leased approximately KRW 80 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) on the part (A) in the ship connected each point of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 8, and 1, among the buildings listed in the attached Table 1 list from the Defendant, to October 9, 201, with a period of 10 square meters from October 10 to October 9, 2016, 15,000 won (the 20th day of each month from the date of payment of rent), on condition that re-consultation on the deposit and rent amount at the expiration of two years after the contract was concluded.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the deposit to the Defendant in full and received the delivery of the instant store, and operated C convenience points.

After that, on October 20, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to increase the amount to KRW 16.5 million with the Defendant and the deposit, and KRW 6.6 million with the rent. At that time, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.5 million to the Defendant around that time.

C. On September 19, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a content-certified mail stating that “it is impossible to renew the instant store to a reconstruction project due to the aging of the building, so that the instant store may not be delivered by October 9, 2016.”

On September 22, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that “If the lease deposit, etc. of the instant store is returned by October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff will deliver the instant store to the Defendant.”

The plaintiff still has been operating convenience points while occupying the store of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-1, and Eul evidence 3-1, and the facts of the above recognition as to the claim for judgment as to the claim as to the purport of the entire pleadings, the lease contract of this case was terminated on October 9, 2016, and thus the lease contract of this case has expired, barring special circumstances, the defendant, a lessor, is obligated to return the lease deposit 16.5 million won to the plaintiff, a lessee.

The defendant's claim on the deduction of the defendant's assertion is from 16.5 million won for the lease deposit of the defendant.