2. The court's explanation of this part of the judgment on the claim of the principal lawsuit is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following modifications. Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The third-party 5 to 13 of the first instance judgment shall be followed as follows:

[1] Under subparagraph 8, the Defendant’s allegation that the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 36 million (=500,000 won x 72 months) for six years from November 21, 2011 to November 20, 2017, where the instant lease contract continues to exist (i.e., unpaid rent). The Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 33,930,00 by the Defendant until August 26, 2017, and the Plaintiff was paid a total of KRW 33,930,000 from the Defendant. According to the evidence evidence No. 8, the Defendant paid a total of KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff on September 27, 2017 and KRW 500,000,000 for each of KRW 50,000,000 to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, and there is no reason to acknowledge that the Defendant was obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 393,394,0,0.

The 6th to 5th of the first instance judgment shall be followed by the following:

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 919,861 (= KRW 1,080,645 KRW 123,416 KRW -1 million - KRW 354,200).

A person shall be appointed.

3. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The summary of the party's assertion is that the defendant paid one million won out of the deposit to the plaintiff, and the defendant bears 354,200 won of the long-term repair appropriations of the real estate of this case, so the plaintiff shall return it to the defendant upon the termination of the contract of this case.