1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: (a) the facts that there is no dispute over [based grounds for recognition] following the third page 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance; (b) the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and 12 (including provisional numbers); and (c) the purport of the whole pleadings; and (d) the entry of the evidence No. 1-1 of the evidence No. 18 in the same page “No. 1-1 and No. 6”; and (b) the entry of the evidence No. 20 in the same face No. 20 as “Seoul Central District Court No. 2011Kao1480,” respectively, and (c) the defendant's argument is as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the further determination as to the defendant's argument as to paragraph (2) below. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The defendant asserts that on March 7, 2006 and September 6, 2006, the duty to pay the above amount of reimbursement is related to the defendant's obligation to pay the above procedure of cancellation of registration and performance in advance or simultaneous performance. Since the plaintiff subrogated for the amount of KRW 54 million each of the lease deposit to E and F, which leased the building of this case from the plaintiff, and KRW 30 million each of the lease deposit to E and F, the amount of KRW 24 million.

On the other hand, there is no basis to regard the Plaintiff’s above indemnity obligation against the Defendant as a prior performance obligation rather than the Defendant’s above performance obligation in the procedure of cancellation, and on the other hand, the right of defense of simultaneous performance is to recognize a performance relation between the obligations in conflict with the bilateral contract based on the principle of fairness, and it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s above indemnity obligation as a prior performance relationship arising from the contract of this case. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is without merit.