1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) indicated in the separate sheet Nos. 2, 1, 2, 3.

1. Factual basis

A. On May 1, 2006, the Plaintiff, the owner of the building indicated in the attached Table 1 list, set up a shop with 33 square meters in part inside the ship (hereinafter “instant shop”) connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, and 30,000 square meters in sequence, and entered into a lease contract with C on May 1, 2006, with deposit 10,000,000, 300,000 won per month.

C was registered with the trade name of “D” at the instant store and operated a new store.

B. On August 5, 2016, the Defendant entered into a premium contract with C on KRW 21,000,000 with respect to the instant store, and entered into a lease contract with the Plaintiff, setting the lease period of KRW 10,000,000 for the following month (excluding value-added tax), and the lease period of KRW 50,000 for the following month (excluding value-added tax), from August 13, 2016 to August 12, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

C. The Defendant completed the construction of interior facilities of KRW 8,700,000, CCTV installation of KRW 2,000,000, and the construction of signboards of KRW 3,300,000 in order to draw up figures from the store of this case, and applied for a business license to the head of the Busan Metropolitan Government Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, but did not obtain the permission on the ground that the store of this case was illegally altered in its structure, and on that basis, did not pay the Plaintiff a car.

On May 16, 2017, the Geum-gu Office issued a corrective order such as removal of illegal buildings due to the unauthorized alteration of use of the store of this case, and registered it in the building ledger as an illegal building.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1-1 to Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 1-3-3, Eul witness Eul's testimony, fact inquiry result, each fact inquiry result, the whole purport of the pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion did not pay only once after the Defendant received the instant store, and thus, the Plaintiff’s allegation was based on the overdue rent of more than three times.