1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following facts, and therefore, it is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

The following facts shall be added to paragraph (b) under Part 2 of the judgment of the first instance, the second part of the judgment, and the second part of paragraph 19 shall be amended to paragraph (c).

B. On August 25, 2010, the Defendant was declared bankrupt on August 25, 2010 by Seoul Central District Court 2009Hahap8.2) The Plaintiff reported the bankruptcy claim of 547,325,000 won on September 16, 2010 (i.e., lease deposit of 210,000,000 won interest claim of 337,325,000 won), and the Defendant’s bankruptcy trustee reported the lease deposit of 210,000 won and denied the interest claim of 200,000 won.

The plaintiff filed a final claim inspection judgment with Seoul Central District Court 2010Ha145 and received interest claim KRW 332,640,000 as bankruptcy claim.

3. After November 16, 201, the defendant received a decision to revoke bankruptcy.

"The third to twenty to twenty-one of the judgments of the first instance" grounds for recognition are amended as follows:

“ [Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, Eul evidence 1 to 4 shall include the number; hereinafter the same shall apply.

each entry, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was around March 20, 2006, and around April 30, 2006, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lease the lease deposit amount of KRW 600,000,000,000,000, which was the time when one month elapsed after the rescission of the instant lease agreement. Around April 30, 2006, the Plaintiff was replaced by the advance payment of the lease deposit.

On April 30, 2006, the administrator of the defendant did not cancel the lease contract as of April 30, 2006.