1. Of the counterclaim claim filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent arising after March 24, 2018 is filed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 17, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the lease deposit amount is KRW 20 million, the rent is KRW 1.5 million, and the lease term is from November 5, 2009 to November 14, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The lease contract of this case states that "if the lease contract is terminated, the lessee shall restore the above real estate to its original state and return it to the lessor" (Article 5), and the special agreement column is written as follows:

1. It is permitted for the lessee to install the facilities with the consent of the lessor before paying any balance; 2. The lessee may request the lessor to install the premium and facilities, and the lessor shall not participate in the transfer to another person; and

3. Prices including value-added tax;

4. The authorization and permission shall be borne and processed by the lessee, and if necessary, the lessor shall provide the documents and provide cooperation. 5. The lessor shall be borne by the lessor when a fine is imposed due to the current lease; 5. The rent shall be KRW 1.3 million from November 15, 2009 to October 15, 2010; and 1.5 million from November 15, 2010 to 1.5 million;

(b).

After the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff had a restaurant facility at the instant store and operated a restaurant with the trade name “D” until the date of closing the argument of the instant case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for refund of lease deposit and counterclaim among the principal lawsuit

A. Of the principal lawsuit, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant at the time of the instant lease agreement, and the fact that the instant lease agreement expired due to the expiration of the period is no dispute between the parties, and the Plaintiff is the person who did not pay KRW 1.5 million for the rent of January 2015.