1. The judgment of the first instance and the protocol subject to quasi-examination shall be revoked;

2.The Court shall suspend compulsory execution of the 2014 Chicago2052.

1. The following facts may be recognized or are apparent to be recorded by evidence A (A).

Before about 20 years, the respondent leased the Seoul Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Cbuilding No. 101 (hereinafter “instant building”) 101 (hereinafter “instant store”) from the applicant, and operated a restaurant with renewal of the lease agreement every year. On January 24, 2013, the respondent entered into a lease agreement for the instant store (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the following content.

1) Lease term: 12 months from December 23, 2012 to December 22, 2013; 100 million won; and 6.5 million won (excluding value-added tax) if the respondent delays monthly rent and management expenses, the respondent shall pay the overdue charge calculated by adding the overdue charge calculated by the ratio of 5% per month to the monthly rent and management expenses (Article 2(7). 4) if the respondent delays all the expenses, such as monthly rent and management expenses, for at least two months from the date of each payment, the applicant may rescind the contract without a peremptory notice.

(Article 7(1)5) Where the contract is terminated due to the cancellation, invalidation, expiration, etc. of the contract, the respondent shall deliver the store of this case to the applicant within the expiration date of the contract, and where the respondent is unable to deliver the store of this case for any reason, the respondent shall pay to the applicant an amount equivalent to twice the monthly rent and management expenses from the expiration date of the contract to the delivery date of the contract (Article 8(1) and (4)6).

Provided, That in the event of default, the applicant may terminate the contract.

(Paragraph 7). (b) of the special agreement.

On February 15, 2013, the applicant appointed a new law firm as a legal representative and applied for the telephone damage against the respondent, etc. by the same content as the attached reconciliation clause in the Seoul Central District Court No. 2013Da345 (excluding the part regarding the right to purchase attached property), and the above court.