1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6,462,200 as well as its full payment from May 1, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. (i) On June 3, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant on the five-story unit (3.9 square meters for exclusive use of one unit, 13.22 square meters for total sale area) on the five-story unit on the five-story unit on the land in Jung-gu, Seoul (including value-added tax).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff and the Defendant, under the instant lease agreement, determined the specific location of the store by drawing after paying the sales price, and decided to settle the sales price according to the increase or decrease in the store size.

(Article I(2). The overdue interest rate for the sale price shall be 19% per annum.

(Article 3). Other important matters are as shown in the annexed sheet.

B. Around February 24, 2010, the Defendant won a lot of commercial buildings on the 5th floor (hereinafter “instant store”). The exclusive use area of the instant store is 3.83 square meters, and the public use area is 11.85 square meters, and the total sale area is 15.68 square meters.

B. On March 19, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the sale price, excluding the security deposit, was settled in accordance with the exclusive area (based on 3.9 square meters), and that the security deposit was settled in accordance with the sale area (based on 13.22 square meters) and issued the details of the settlement, and that the account payable should be paid until April 30, 2010.

Fidelity Defendant paid KRW 77,550,000 to the Plaintiff out of the rent of this case.

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the rent-sale price with the Plaintiff and D&A association (hereinafter “building association”) by the Seoul Central District Court 2010Kahap134177, along with the other buyers of the above B commercial building, for the primary claim against the Plaintiff and D&A association on the ground of false or exaggerated deceptive act, and for seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to explain due to the violation of the duty to explain (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”). On January 2, 2014, the above court filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation to explain (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”).