2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

A. On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff, on the second floor of the building in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, transferred all the rights to lease and facilities on the 40 square meters of entertainment restaurant 40 square meters to the Defendant (the KRW 15 million of premium 33,00,000,000). The Plaintiff agreed to be paid the intermediate payment of KRW 15 million on the contract date, and the intermediate payment of KRW 10,000,000 on February 28, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 18,000,000 on March 30, 2014.

B. Around February 6, 2014, the Plaintiff delivered the above restaurant to the Defendant. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff the down payment of KRW 15 million around the date of the contract, and paid the Plaintiff KRW 31 million totaling KRW 9 million on February 28, 2014 and KRW 7 million on March 30, 2014.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the lease price of KRW 12 million and damages for delay, except for the amount that the plaintiff was paid to the plaintiff, unless there is a special reason to the contrary.

B. (1) The judgment on the Defendant’s assertion was made (1) that the above entertainment restaurant was in violation of the method of lawsuit due to illegal remodeling, and thus, the Defendant brought KRW 14,30,000 to restore it to its original state, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to set off the cost of restoration to its original state

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings with the testimony of the witness witness D at the trial as to the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 6 of the judgment, the Plaintiff agreed to legally be liable for the absence of any defect in the administrative disposition at the time of the above contract. The above restaurant was found to have changed the structure of the structure, and the Plaintiff prepared a receipt to receive KRW 7 million from the Defendant as “the balance of premium” on March 30, 2014.

However, according to D's testimony, the above phrase is written as D, and the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he said that he said that he would know about the rent. Thus, the facts acknowledged above alone agreed to set off the cost for restoration and the remainder of the lease price.