1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim claim filed by this court are dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal; and

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of a multi-family house (hereinafter “instant building”) located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, 240.7 square meters and a multi-family house on its ground. However, on July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff concluded a real estate sales contract with the Defendant to sell the said land and the instant building (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). The contract deposit amounting to KRW 10 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 20 million on August 19, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 785 million on the date of the contract, respectively, was agreed to be paid on November 1, 2014.

B. Provided, however, the Plaintiff planned to sell the instant building and sell it to be an apartment of the luminous City that newly purchased it, but the apartment of the luminous City that the Plaintiff intended to become a director by the remaining remaining date was not completed, on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on each of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 40 million and KRW 30 million among the instant building, and each of the lease periods from October 21, 2014 to October 21, 2016 (hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”) with each of the terms that the Plaintiff is to lease from the Defendant (hereinafter “each of the instant lease agreements”). The payment of each of the lease deposit amount is to deduct KRW 70 million from the remainder of the purchase price of the instant sales contract to be received by the Plaintiff (i.e., D subparagraph 40 million and KRW 30 million from the remainder of the purchase price to be paid by the Plaintiff (i.e., the deposit amount of KRW 3 million).

C. Accordingly, as of October 22, 2014, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant with respect to the instant building.

Before the expiration of the lease term, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact that “The Plaintiff had no intention to renew each of the instant lease agreements, and thus, notified the Defendant of the repayment of the lease deposit by October 29, 2016, which is the scheduled date to be moved into the Mad new city.”

E. On October 31, 2016, the Plaintiff delivered the Defendant a lease object D and the roof room, among the instant buildings.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, 10, 11, and Eul evidence 1, respectively.