1. The judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant’s principal claim expanded by this court, is as follows:

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the judgment on the basis of facts and the claims on the merits are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal of the part “d. theory of lawsuit” as stated in Chapters 9 and 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, this part is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A person shall be appointed.

D. Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff damages amounting to KRW 155,671,062 and damages for delay.

A person shall be appointed.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the existence of the Plaintiff’s duty to return the lease deposit, the Defendant, a lessee, was unable to use and benefit from the instant leased building as the instant leased building was destroyed by a fire, and thus, the instant lease contract was terminated due to nonperformance on January 6, 2016, when the instant fire occurred.

I would like to say.

Furthermore, as seen earlier, the Defendant paid KRW 40,000,000 to the Plaintiff with the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the said lease deposit amount of KRW 40,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

B. As the Plaintiff’s fire occurred due to a cause attributable to the Defendant, and the leased building of this case was destroyed, the Plaintiff asserts that the amount of damages should be deducted from the lease deposit to be returned to the Defendant, on the ground that, as the Plaintiff suffered damages not paid KRW 45 million in total from January 6, 2016, the date of expiration of the instant lease agreement, to April 24, 2017, which is the expiration date of the instant lease agreement, from January 6, 2016.

However, as seen earlier, it cannot be seen that the instant fire was caused by the Defendant’s fault, and the above causes are accurate.