1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) amounting to KRW 17,642,055 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and its amount from November 19, 2015 to December 12, 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) leased the lease deposit of KRW 32,00,000 (hereinafter “instant factory”); (b) up to December 31, 2015, up to December 31, 2015; (c) monthly rent of KRW 3,200,000 (excluding value-added tax); and (d) monthly management expenses (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); and (c) delivered the said factory to the Plaintiff around that time; and (d) the Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit of KRW 32,00,000 to the Defendant.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to terminate the instant lease agreement as of October 31, 2015 (hereinafter “instant termination agreement”) due to the Plaintiff’s circumstances.

C. Around that time, the Plaintiff restored to its original state the remainder, excluding the part of a tent and toilet, where disputes over the scope of restitution between the Defendant and the Defendant, and delivered the factory of this case

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the principal claim, the instant lease contract was terminated as of October 31, 2015 pursuant to the instant termination agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff should be deducted from the lease deposit of KRW 32,00,000 (including value-added tax) for the rent of KRW 7,040,000 for September and October, 2015, the management fee of KRW 440,00 for two months, and the electricity fee of KRW 2,480,770 for August 18, 2015 to September 17, 2015, deducted from the lease deposit of KRW 19,039,230 for restoration expenses, KRW 19,651,230 for the Plaintiff, however, appears to be erroneous.

There is an obligation to pay damages for delay.

3. Determination as to the defendant's assertion and counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s argument that the termination agreement of this case was a condition precedenting the restoration of the original state, including a ceiling, etc., and the Plaintiff, while entering into the instant lease agreement, succeeds to the duty of restoration of D, a lessee.