1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) is the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on June 26.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The Defendant, on December 24, 2009, leased 203 of the C building 203 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) to the Plaintiff on a fixed basis as a deposit for the lease of 40 million won and 1.7 million won per month (on a 30th day of each month), and the Plaintiff operated the “E” by leasing the instant commercial building and the instant commercial building No. 204 (No. D. 204). The fact that the Plaintiff paid 40 million won to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties.

2. The point of termination of the lease agreement on the commercial building of this case

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the lease agreement was terminated by accepting the Plaintiff’s notice of termination and taking the key into account on April 5, 2013. The Plaintiff asserted that the lease agreement was terminated by taking account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s notice of termination was accepted by the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant’s notice of termination was sent to the management office.

However, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the lease contract for the instant commercial building was terminated on December 27, 2013, as it was returned to the original state only on December 27, 2013, without being notified of the termination of the lease contract as of April 5, 2013, and there was no lack of consent to the termination.

B. In order for the termination of the agreement to take effect, the Plaintiff’s offer for termination and the Defendant’s expression of consent for termination must be consistent.

However, there is no evidence that the plaintiff offered a direct termination order to the defendant, and the defendant expressed his/her intent to consent to the plaintiff.

In other words, only a unilateral declaration of intent that the plaintiff wants to lease the commercial building of this case was made.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the lease contract on the commercial building of this case was terminated only on December 27, 2013, since the Defendant sought the rent from December 27, 2013 and recognized the effect of termination on that day.

According to the witness witness D's testimony, D and the defendant have various opinions on the utilization of the commercial facilities of this case after the plaintiff's closure of business.