1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordering payment.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasons for this part of the facts of recognition are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The first instance court’s judgment within the scope of this Court’s adjudication refers to the Plaintiff’s request for extradition among the principal lawsuit, and the said request for monetary payment was dismissed, but only the Plaintiff appealed and appealed. As such, the subject of adjudication in this Court is limited to the claim for monetary payment.

However, as to the above monetary payment claim, the plaintiff added the claim for damages based on the illegal act selectively, the above additional claim is also subject to the judgment of this court.

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s claim is that: (a) the Defendant only paid the rent for one month around June 2013, and there was no later paid rent; (b) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 1,00,000 per month from October 1, 2014 to the date the delivery of the instant building is completed; (c) the lessor’s duty to use or make profits from the leased object and the lessee’s duty to pay the rent is mutually responding to each other; (d) as the lessor’s duty to mutually copes with the lessor’s duty to use or make profits from the leased object and the lessee’s duty to pay the rent, if the lessee is unable to use the object at all due to nonperformance of the duty to use or make profits from the leased object, the lessee may refuse to pay the rent in full.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da41069 Decided September 24, 2009, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the instant lease contract was concluded by the Defendant to run a private stay business, and the Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances. However, the instant building site is included in the river maintenance plan district, and its construction is completed.