1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 8, 2010, the Plaintiff leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 5,00,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 380,000, and management fee of KRW 25,000 to the Defendant on the second floor of the building located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant studio”).

B. From September 9, 2010 to January 13, 2014, the Defendant occupied and used the instant studio.

C. The sum of the rent for the period in which the Defendant uses the room of this case is KRW 15,261,290 (=380,000 x (5/31 day in 40 months x 5/31 day in x 40 months; hereinafter the same shall apply). The sum of the management fees is KRW 1,004,032 (=25,000 x (5/31 day in 40 months). The sum of the rent for the period in which the Defendant used the room of this case is to pay is KRW 3,485,00 in addition to the management fees.

The Plaintiff was paid KRW 17,55,000 by adding up the lease deposit and the rent to the Defendant.

The plaintiff given a discount of KRW 200,000 among the rent to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In the judgment of the court, the plaintiff claimed 1/20,00 of the principal, and the management fee is the only principal, and the cost of repairing water is the only principal, and the claim for repairing the building was waived.

Therefore, the sum that the Plaintiff is obliged to receive from the Defendant due to the lease of studio of this case is KRW 19,048,306 [the sum of KRW 15,261,290 - 200,000 [the management expenses x 1,004,032 x 1/2] (the management expenses x 1,004,032 x 3,485,000], and the balance is KRW 17,55,000 already received from this amount after deducting the sum of KRW 1,493,306.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should bear 13,000 won for the heat of water supply which was imposed as of March 16, 2014. However, there is no evidence to prove that the above amount was incurred by the Defendant using the studio of this case. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

The Defendant prescribed by the Civil Act from May 26, 2014, which was the date of payment of the above KRW 1,493,306 to the Plaintiff, until July 8, 2016, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist as to the existence or scope of the obligation.