The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court may refuse to examine the evidence requested by a party, unless it is the sole evidence of the facts alleged by the party; and

(Article 290 of the Civil Procedure Act). On-site verification applications filed by the Defendant do not constitute the only evidence of the Defendant’s assertion, but do not necessarily need to be accepted on the records. Therefore, the lower court erred in rejecting the applications.

There is no error of law that did not exhaust all necessary deliberations.

2. The reasoning of a written judgment is sufficient to indicate the judgment on the party’s assertion and other means of offence and defense to the extent that it can be recognized that the text is justifiable (Article 208 of the Civil Procedure Act). Therefore, even if a court’s judgment does not indicate a direct determination on the matters alleged by the party, it cannot be deemed an omission of judgment if it is possible to find out that the assertion was cited or rejected in light of the overall purport of the reasoning of the judgment even if the specific determination on the matters alleged by the party was not indicated, and even if it was obvious that the assertion

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da87174 Decided April 26, 2012, etc.). The lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that the instant contract is valid, and even if the instant contract is a land lease contract as alleged by the Defendant, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim regarding the right to claim for the reduction of rent based on Article 628 of the Civil Act, etc. on the ground that the instant storage charge cannot be deemed to have been remarkably unfair due to changes in circumstances. In so determining, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s claim for the reduction of rent.