1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 2,448,518, respectively, to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim on January 6, 2016, respectively.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 5, 7, 8, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 5, and 8 (including serial numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply):

On September 23, 2013, the Defendants entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Plaintiff, setting a deposit of KRW 100 million, KRW 4.5 million per month, and the period from September 25, 2013 to September 24, 2015, with respect to “EM” located in Suwon-si D, Suwon-si (hereinafter “EM”). At that time, the Defendants paid the said deposit to the Plaintiff, and run a telecom business upon delivery of the said telecom.

B. On September 24, 2015, the Plaintiff refused to renew the instant lease agreement with the expiration of the contract period, and requested the Defendants to pay KRW 78,801,310, which deducts KRW 21,198,690, such as repair expenses, such as computers, mail signboards and elevators, and unpaid public charges of the Defendants from KRW 100 million.

C. After that, the Defendants paid the Plaintiff KRW 4.10,00 among the rent of October 2015 and KRW 4.5 million among the rent of November 2015, the Defendants continued to operate the said telecom and delivered the said telecom to the Plaintiff on January 5, 2016.

(The Defendant alleged that he delivered the above telecom to the Plaintiff on December 25, 2015, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it).

On the other hand, at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Defendants agreed to register the business of the above EM in the name of the Plaintiff, subscribe to non-life insurance for the facilities, equipment, etc. of the above EM, except property tax, and bear all kinds of taxes, such as value-added tax and income tax, and tax return costs. According to the agreement, as a result of the payment of the insurance premium under the name of the Plaintiff’s LIG Home T&C comprehensive insurance, there was KRW 9,176,203 of the termination refund as of September 25, 2015.

2. Determination:

A. The amount to be paid by the Defendants upon termination of the instant lease agreement is as follows.