1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 3, 2007, the Defendant leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to D as the sum total of lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million and monthly rent of KRW 9 million (excluding value-added tax).

B. After December 15, 2008, the Defendant concluded a lease contract under the same conditions as the above lease condition (hereinafter “instant contract”) with C on December 15, 2008, and C succeeded to the obligation to pay the unpaid rent and management expenses of the former lessee, and C was first performed until December 31, 2008, and the rent, etc. paid by C is appropriated for the unpaid rent, etc. of D.

C. On June 22, 2009, the Defendant received a protocol of conciliation prior to the filing of the suit, as the court No. 2009No. 873 regarding the instant contract, which included the following matters:

C In the event that the monthly rent is overdue for at least two months, C shall immediately order the Defendant to issue an order for the instant real estate.

C shall restore each of the instant real property to its original state and specify it, and may not claim for beneficial cost and premium to the Defendant.

On February 6, 2013, based on the authentic copy of the authentic deed of promissory notes against C, the Plaintiff received attachment and assignment order for KRW 100 million among C’s claim for the refund of the above lease deposit, and the order was served on the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant assignment order”). E.

On November 25, 2013, the Defendant notified C of the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of arrears of more than two times, and pursuant to the above protocol of conciliation, C commenced the enforcement of surrenderance. On the basis of the above protocol, C denied the agreement to succeed to the obligations of the former lessee D and the fact that the Defendant’s termination is not legitimate, and the Defendant filed a suit of objection against the claim, which sought the exclusion of the enforcement of surrender surrenderance execution, and the enforcement of the lease agreement was suspended until the Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan328525 decided on the provisional disposition.

(f) thereafter;