2. After an appeal is filed.

[Supplementary Use]

F. On April 2016, the Plaintiff requested to change a siren user to the Vienna Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Vienna Capital”), a sirening company (hereinafter “Nonenna”), but was notified by the said company that it is impossible to change the siren user around May 2016.

Since then, the Plaintiff requested the change of the re-sene user and the transfer and installation of the hot spring of this case through F, who is an employee of the Vienna Capital.

Accordingly, the above company accepted the transfer of the hot heat apparatus of this case verbally, and provided another guidance on the documents for succession to the instant hot spring contract.

G. The Defendant refused to succeed to the instant siren contract on the grounds of the issue of A/S of the hot fever, and the Plaintiff, the contracting party to the instant siren, continued to pay the rental fee of the instant hot fever between July 2016 and September 2017 to the Vienna Capital.

The sum of the rental fee paid as such is 225,539,115 won (=15,035,941 won x 15 months).

2. The reason why the court used this part of the judgment as to the plaintiff's claim is as stated in Paragraph 2 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for the case where a letter No. 4 of the judgment of the first instance 1 through No. 2 is used as follows. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Attachment] 4 Therefore, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 225,539,115, which the Plaintiff paid to the Vienna Capital from July 2016 to September 2017 due to nonperformance of the instant contract.

3. Judgment on the Intervenor’s claim

A. The Intervenor’s summary of the Intervenor’s assertion is objection.