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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the modification or addition of part of the grounds of the judgment of the court of the first instance, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. The portion modified and added;

(a) Change “the facts of recognition” in Part 5, part 16, of the first instance judgment to “the evidence mentioned above, the statement of No. 10, the witness of the first instance trial, and the witness’s partial testimony and testimony.”

(b)as of Part 6 of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added to the phrase “not admitted” in paragraph 1 of the first instance judgment:

【The Defendant stated that all of the key money was paid to the previous person having chonsegwon as a check at the date of the second pleading of the trial at the court below, but it was confirmed that the Defendant did not issue a check to pay the key money. As a result of each financial institution’s financial transaction information reply, the Defendant reversed the statement that all the above key money was paid in cash on the fourth day of the trial at the court below, and the time when the Defendant asserts that the Defendant was given the right to lease on a deposit of this case on a deposit basis at around 2004 and around 2006. At that time, it is difficult to easily understand that the Defendant’s age was kept in cash as the 20th half and 220 million won, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to pay the key money as the key money. However, the Defendant testified that the person having chonsegwon, who was the person having chonsegwon prior to the real estate of this case, was present at the court below and transferred the right to lease on a deposit basis to the Defendant, but it was not sufficient to recognize the Defendant’s testimony that the Defendant prepared.

3. Thus, the judgment of the first instance court is the conclusion.