Background
In a lease dispute, the tenant sued for return of the deposit (the principal claim), and the landlord counterclaimed that "you occupied land owned by the local government without authorization and occupancy charges were assessed, so that much must be deducted." Changchun represented the tenant (the plaintiff).
What Was at Stake
The central issue was "whether the local government land the tenant occupied and used fell within the subject matter of the lease." If it did, the tenant would have to bear the occupancy charges.
How Changchun Helped
Changchun (attorney Woojin Kim) proved there was insufficient basis for treating the land in question as part of the leased property, demolishing the landlord's argument for deduction.
The court rejected the landlord's counterclaim, so our client prevailed both on the principal claim (return of the deposit) and on the counterclaim (refusal of the deduction). The case turned on precisely what the lease covered. (Outcomes depend on the facts of each case and may differ.)