Of the judgment of the first instance court, the Defendants’ failure in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid has been revoked, and thus, the said part.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance, the recognition and determination of the first instance judgment is justifiable, and there is no error as alleged by the Defendants in the grounds for appeal.

This court's ruling is based on the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, because it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the first instance except for the following cases or addition.

【19 No. 19, No. 23 of the first instance court’s judgment 4th day of recognition】 The evidence “19, No. 23” of the column

To delete Section 1) from the 5th judgment of the first instance court each week on the same side as the indication of each week from the 5th judgment.

The Plaintiff, “six-party 2 conduct” of the first instance judgment, is a lease deposit received under the first lease agreement on each of the following subparagraphs, and can cover part payments pursuant to the instant sales contract. The Plaintiff added “B”.

The testimony of “B” and the testimony of AI witness witness for the first instance trial at “B” can be known to “B, the same side, and the same side,” and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the lease deposit that the Plaintiff is able to appropriate for part payments is limited to the lease deposit that is paid under the first lease agreement on each unit.

b. Determination on the assertion of deduction of monthly earnings is made on the following grounds: 6th judgment of the first instance court; 2th judgment.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the shortage of monthly rent to the Defendants from May 2018 to the time all the leased object remaining in the public room since May 2018, 2018, the amount of monthly rent shortage to be paid from the Plaintiff should be deducted from the amount of unjust profit of the Defendants.

‘Aro-friendly'.

The first instance court Decision 7 7,800,000 'B' '7,880,000 'W' '7,880,000 'W'

It is reasonable for the first instance court's 7th trial decision to "the 11th trial."

The Defendants are the following.