1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment order

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is liable to pay 58,000 won in arrears, 472,328 won in delay for the unpaid deposit, 4,459,859 won in delay, and 10,569,939 won in delay, and 73,582,126 won in total, and 24,317,700 won in lease deposit, and 34,000,000 won in lease deposit (the plaintiff's claim amount is 15,265,066 won in calculation of a clerical error) shall remain remaining.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 15,264,426 won and damages for delay.

B. In the order of judgment, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the price for the goods to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant is 24,317,700 won, and the deposit for lease is 34,000,000 won, and both the plaintiff and the defendant have a claim against the other party as the automatic claim.

Therefore, the following should be examined as to the establishment and scope of the defendant's obligation for each item requested by the plaintiff, and after examining the claim for offset or deduction.

3. Judgment on each of the plaintiff's claims

A. The parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant voluntarily removed the instant building on February 28, 2013 despite the existence of the instant contract in force, and thereafter that the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with a new lessee on April 9, 2013. The Plaintiff asserts that: (a) the sum of the rent from April 9, 2012 to April 8, 2013 was KRW 58,080,000 (=4,840,000) x 12 months.

As to this, the defendant demanded the defendant to leave the building of this case from the police officer around November 2012 to leave the building of this case on January 10, 2013, and thus, the defendant was to leave the building of this case.