1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim of the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount constitutes an additional payment order.

1. In the first instance trial on the scope of adjudication, the Plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of the building and the payment of money to the principal lawsuit, and the claim for the delivery of the building was dismissed, and the Defendant partially accepted the claim for the payment of money to the principal lawsuit. Since both the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not object to the claim for the delivery of the building among the claims for the principal lawsuit, the part of the claim for the delivery of the principal lawsuit is excluded from the scope of adjudication

2. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2010, the Plaintiff was running an entertainment drinking house (hereinafter “instant main shop”) under the trade name “D,” a deposit of KRW 3 million and annual rent of KRW 7 million from C. On December 27, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to sublet each of the instant buildings (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the term of lease from December 29, 2012 to December 12 (from December 28, 2013), deposit of KRW 5 million, and monthly rent of KRW 1 million (payment on December 30, 2013), and received deposit money from the Defendant.

Since that time, the Defendant operated the main points of this case in the building of this case.

B. The Plaintiff maintained the business license and business registration under the Plaintiff’s name while operating the instant main store, and deposited the credit card sales price of the instant main store into the account in the Plaintiff’s name.

From January 17, 2013 to February 26, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted part of the amount of money settled by arbitrarily deducting rents, various user fees, public charges, etc. from the sales price of the credit card from the above credit card sales to the account under the name of the Defendant E or the Plaintiff’s account kept by the Defendant. From March 2014, the Plaintiff did not pay any amount of settlement from March 2014.

C. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff sent a peremptory notice to the Defendant. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the overdue rent and loan within 14 days from the date of receipt of the peremptory notice on the grounds that the Defendant was delinquent from April 2013.