The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. The defendant's appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the defendant's argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows evidence submitted in this court, it is acknowledged that the facts of first instance and the judgment are legitimate.

Therefore, this Court's decision is citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment except for the dismissal as set forth in the following paragraph 2, and therefore, it is citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The height of the judgment of the first instance court (hereinafter referred to as “the second instance judgment”) in the second instance (hereinafter referred to as “the second instance judgment”) is close to “B.”

Of the judgment of the first instance court 1-B of the second party 1-B, the term "Jongbuk-do" shall be changed to the term "Jong-Nam".

In Section 2 of the second instance judgment of the first instance court, “The rent and rent” are “The rent of KRW 29,690,590”, and “the price of materials” is “2,976,000 for the material price of KRW 22,976,00 for the material.”

Under the 6th judgment of the first instance court, “in the document prepared by the Plaintiff on May 8, 2018” means “in the document prepared by the Plaintiff on May 8, 2018,” “as indicated in the document prepared by the Plaintiff on May 8, 2018,” and “in the same day during the 9th parallel,” and “in the same line,” during the 8th parallel from “in the same day.”

B. The phrase “it appears that the first date of release of the pumps above is March 20, 2015” in the foregoing phrase is deemed to be a clerical error in the phrase “ March 20, 2015.”

Under the 6th judgment of the first instance court, “I,” the following: “Where the lessee has fulfilled the duty of due care as a good manager with respect to the preservation of the leased object; where the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object has become impossible, the lessee is responsible for proving that the impossibility of performance is not due to the lessee’s fault (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Da51013, 51020, Jan. 13, 2006; 2009Da13170, May 28, 2009).”