1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 1,200,000 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim from December 7, 2012 to June 26, 2013.

1. In this subsection, the principal claim and counterclaim shall also be deemed to be satisfied.

The following facts may be acknowledged if there is no dispute between the parties, or if Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3-1, 5-1, 5-1, 1-2, 2-2, 2-2, 4-2, 3-2, and 3-3 of Gap evidence 1-1, 3-1, 5-2, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, 3-2, and the result of the on-site inspection by this court shows the overall purport of

On October 13, 2007, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiffs by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 90,000,000,000 from November 13, 2007 to November 12, 2009 as the lease deposit amount of KRW 405,602 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) owned by the Plaintiffs, and around that time, paid the above deposit to the Plaintiffs and resided in the instant apartment after delivery from the Plaintiffs.

B. The plaintiffs and the defendant agreed to renew the above lease contract at a time when the above lease term expires, and prepared a real estate lease contract with the period from November 13, 2009 to November 12, 201, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 115 million increased by KRW 25 million compared to the previous one, and the lease term from November 13, 2009 to November 12, 201.

(Special terms and conditions, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiffs KRW 25 million out of the increased amount of lease deposit to KRW 25 million on the date of the contract, and the remaining KRW 5 million on the date of November 13, 2010 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). (C)

On August 201, the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant that there was no intention to renew the instant lease agreement by deeming that they would sell the instant apartment to another person. On October 201, 2011, the Defendant also notified the Plaintiffs that they had no intention to extend the instant lease agreement.

However, after the term of the instant lease agreement expires, there was a dispute over the cost of reinstatement between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, and the Defendant was unable to refund the lease deposit on July 28, 2012.