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

2. Costs of appeal; and

Any counterclaim filed by the principal lawsuit and this court shall also be deemed to be a counterclaim.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease the 7th floor of “D” located on the 7th or 10th floor of the C Building 7 through the Defendant’s 10th floor (hereinafter “instant soup”) with the deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,90,000, and the period from January 23, 2012 to 12 months, and to lend soup to the soup customers of the instant case (hereinafter “the soup set up”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement.” According to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the remainder (hereinafter “the instant settlement amount”) calculated by deducting the laundry fee and the above rent from the soup rental fee by the 15th day of each month and the end of each month.

B. The instant lease agreement has been renewed every year. On November 25, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the said lease agreement on the grounds of unpaid settlement payments, and was returned from the Defendant around March 2, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. 본소 청구에 관한 판단 살피건대, 갑 제3, 4호증의 각 기재 및 변론 전체의 취지에 의하면, 원고는 2016. 3. 2.경 이 사건 임대차보증금을 반환받을 때까지 이 사건 찜찔방에서 이 사건 찜질복을 대여하여 온 사실, 2013. 3.경부터 2016. 2.경까지 미지급된 이 사건 정산금은 14,765,480원 에 이르는 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이에 의하면 피고는 원고에게 14, 765,480원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있다

In February 2016, the defendant argued that the long-term user's laundry should not arrive, and that the settlement of accounts in February 2016 should be excluded from the settlement of accounts of this case, but only the evidence submitted.