1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,928,200 for the Plaintiff and KRW 19% per annum from May 1, 2010 to April 15, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 3, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant and the second 2-story of the Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul, on a total of KRW 86,350,000 (including value-added tax) for each sale price of KRW 172,70,000, respectively.

Under the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant determined the specific location of the store by lot after the payment of the above sale price, and decided to settle the sale price according to the increase and decrease in the store size (Article 1(2)), and the overdue rate for the sale price is 19% per annum.

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

B. On February 25, 2010, the Defendant won the winnings of the second floor 249 and 250 above the ground by drawing lots of stores.

The exclusive use area under subparagraph 249 of the underground second floor is 4.07 square meters for the exclusive use area, the total sale area is 13.26 square meters for the exclusive use area, and the exclusive use area under subparagraph 250 is 4.20 square meters for the exclusive use area, and 18.73

C. On March 19, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the sales price, excluding the rental deposit, was settled in accordance with the exclusive area (based on 3.9 square meters) and that the lease deposit was settled in accordance with the sale area (based on 13.22 square meters), and issued each of the following specifications of settlement, and notified the Defendant of the payment of the amount payable until April 30, 2010.

A

D. The Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 172,70,000 in total prior to the settlement following an increase or decrease in the size, but did not pay KRW 21,726,60 in total, and KRW 21,928,200 in respect of KRW 2,201,60 in relation to subparagraph 249 and KRW 250 in total, which was the late payment amount arising from the settlement of accounts after drawing.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. (i) The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's obligation to pay the settlement money exists and the scope of one party: The lease contract of this case is based on the increase and decrease rate of "exclusive area" for the settlement of the lease price after the lot of stores, and the lease deposit is based on the "lease area" added to the exclusive area.