Of the judgment of the first instance, the plaintiff is against the plaintiff on the preliminary claim equivalent to the amount ordered to be paid.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; or (b) evidence Nos. 1 to 3; and (c) evidence Nos. 1 to 1.

On August 4, 1999, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendants on the lease of KRW 750,00,000 for underground floors among the buildings on the land of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “the instant building”). The lease agreement includes an agreement under which the Defendants would bear environmental improvement charges and charges for causing traffic congestion imposed on the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant building, as the lessee, in the course of operating the bath bath (hereinafter “instant bath”).

B. From April 15, 2003, the Defendants did not pay the Plaintiff rent properly, excluding part of the value-added tax.

Then, the above lease agreement was explicitly renewed on one occasion at around 2004, and the Plaintiff’s termination notice on the ground of the delinquency in rent terminated around May 26, 2008, which was delivered to the Defendants. The Defendants delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff on August 31, 2009.

C. Meanwhile, while the Defendants run the bath in this case, the Plaintiff paid all environmental improvement charges and charges for causing traffic congestion imposed on them from 2002 to 2009 as follows:

(Unit) On October 5, 2018, 2002, the date of the payment of charges for causing traffic congestion, which was 204,890, 277,500 on October 5, 2018, 2007, 130 on July 27, 2016, 1,618, 610 on January 1, 2004; 618, 610 on December 5, 2018; 2,085, 460 on May 2, 2007, 1, 203, 2005, 1,703, 2005, 1,703, 1,651, 651, 651, 400, 208, 205, 206, 205, 208, 2005, 206, 2005