2. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s claim added in the trial is dismissed.

A. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff claimed the Defendant to pay the rent of KRW 4,500,000,000, and the first instance court tried to seek only the rent of KRW 3,500,000,000 in the petition of appeal. This is to be determined by deciding to reduce the purport of the claim regarding the portion of the rent.

(1) On April 22, 2011, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) leased the said real estate from Nonparty D, the former owner of Nonparty C 101 Dong C101-dong 502 (hereinafter “instant real estate”); (b) up to April 9, 2013, the lease deposit amount of KRW 10,000; (c) monthly rent of KRW 500,000; and (d) leased the said real estate to Nonparty E on February 26, 2014.

However, after the Defendant was awarded the bid for the instant real estate, the Plaintiff received directly from E for the reason that he was the owner of the instant real estate.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff out of the monthly rent from April 2014 to September 2014 that the Defendant received from E.

(2) It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff entered into a sub-lease contract with E with respect to the instant real estate by itself with the statement of No. 5, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion, which is premised on the sub-lease of the real estate of this case, is without merit.

B. The plaintiff in part of the repair cost entered in the petition of appeal to the effect that the plaintiff additionally sought 500,000 won of the repair cost, which is to be determined by adding the claim about the repair cost to the claim.

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the defendant is obliged to pay the above repair cost of KRW 500,000,000 to the plaintiff, since the plaintiff saw the boiler of the real estate of this case and paid 500,000 at the repair cost.

The boiler of this case, as the case, was the same.

(b).