1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and the pleading materials submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment

The reasoning for this Court concerning this case is as stated in the part of the judgment of the first instance except for the parts used as follows, and as to the matters alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal, as set forth in paragraph (2) below, and as such, the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as stated in Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. (a) The part in the decision of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “D”) shall be used both as “D” and “D”, and the part in the decision of the court of first instance (hereinafter referred to as “D”) shall be deleted.

(b) On No. 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 11" was added to "No. 1," "No. 1," "No. 1," and "No. 1," respectively.

(c) On the fourth part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “2,650.11 square meter x one year/12 x 2,650.11 square meter x one year/12 x one year/12 x one year/12)” shall be added to “the area of the building” in the fourth part of the judgment of first instance.

(d) On the fourth ground of the judgment of the first instance, the first instance court dismissed the “543,024,097 won equivalent to the rent (27,494,891 won x 19.75)” as “543,024,097 won equivalent to the rent (i.e., 27,494,891 won x 19.75 months).”

(e) Nos. 5, 15, 18, 20, and 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance each of “D” shall be adjusted to “N”, respectively.

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the assertion that the opposing power under the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act is recognized to the Defendant, the Defendant, on June 29, 2015, entered into a new lease agreement with the lessor C by setting up a letter of undertaking (No. 10) between the lessor C.

Accordingly, the defendant was revised on May 13, 2015 and enforced on the same day.