1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be 65,650,685 won to the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

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

The court of first instance partly accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of buildings, the claim for rent, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment among the principal claim of this case, dismissed the claim for damages, and partly accepted the Defendant’s claim for return of deposit among the counterclaim of this case, and accepted the claim for return of premium in whole.

However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff withdrawn the part of the claim for delivery of a building at the trial, and filed an appeal against the remainder of the principal lawsuit and counterclaim in the judgment of the first instance, and the Defendant filed an incidental appeal regarding the part of the claim for the return of security deposit in the judgment of the first instance.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the delivery of a building among the principal claim of this case was excluded from the subject of a trial on the appeal, and only the portion of the claim for rent, unjust enrichment, claim for damages, claim for refund of premium, claim for refund of deposit, and claim for refund of deposit remains subject to a trial on the appeal.

Basic Facts

On June 21, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on the following terms: (a) KRW 200,000,000 for the lease deposit; (b) monthly rent of KRW 6,00,000 for the lease deposit; and (c) the lease period of KRW 24 months from the delivery date for the lease contract.

Before the delivery date of the instant building, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 8,000,000 to the Plaintiff only after deducting the remainder from KRW 200,000,000 as the lease deposit that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff, and paid KRW 15,00,000 as the deposit for lease on June 26, 2012. After receiving the instant building on July 1, 2012, the Plaintiff and the Defendant operated a telecom with the instant building until November 1, 2015.

The defendant delivered the building of this case to the plaintiff on October 2013.