1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuits, the part concerning the claim for the confirmation of existence of obligations.

1. The reasons why the court has stated this part of the underlying facts are stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 4-2 of the judgment of the court of first instance "notarial deeds mentioned in paragraph (2)" shall be written in the "notarial deeds entered in the text".

The fourth 6th son of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be subject to the "Witness H" of the court of first instance as "H".

2. The reasons why the court stated in this part of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a debt is legitimate are stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 3. Determination as to a lawsuit seeking objection

A. The reasons why the court specified this part of the obligation stated in the Notarial Deed of this case are stated are as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act).

This Court's judgment on the obligation to pay borrowed money is stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following reasons:

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 6-17 of the judgment of the court of first instance, 6-17 of the court of first instance, shall be followed as follows.

【2) The Plaintiff asserts that, since the Defendant did not change the name of the tenant of the instant lease agreement to the instant promotion committee, the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay KRW 200 million, and even if not, the Defendant should have the obligation to pay only the expenses actually invested in connection with the promotion committee.

3 According to the court's fact-finding, it is recognized that the lessee status under the instant lease agreement has not been changed to the promotion committee of this case.

However, as seen earlier, the committee of promotion of this case first agreed to pay the Defendant the expenses of the promotion center at its own expense to be paid in full, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant agreed to pay the expenses of the promotion center at its own expense to the Defendant.