1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

[Claim]

1. The court of first instance dismissed the part of the Plaintiff’s claim to claim the refund of lease deposit and the refund of infrastructure charges, and dismissed the claim for the refund of the excess payment. The Plaintiff appealed only to the claim for the refund of rent for the excess payment. As such, the scope of the court’s judgment is limited to the Plaintiff’s claim for the refund of rent for the excess payment.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the case that is used by the court of the first instance, the corresponding part of the court's scope of trial among the grounds of the first instance judgment is identical to that of the corresponding part of this court's reasoning. Thus, the part that is used by the court of the first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 23 as to the claim for return of the rent paid in excess after July 2010 and the statements in Gap evidence No. 23 as witnesses of the first instance trial, D, and AK, it can be acknowledged that "AM, D, and K have made a statement to the effect that "the defendant has increased the rent by 54.2 million won per month," instead of increasing the rent by 54.20 million won per month as it is necessary for the tax return, the defendant's monthly rent by 54.20,000 won per year, which was paid by the plaintiff at the end of the year (=5.42 million won - 20 million won) x 12 months per year, instead of increasing by 54.20 million won per month as it is necessary for the tax return return, the plaintiff as the plaintiff has accepted the defendant's demand to believe such defendant's promise."

However, considering the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 4-3 (No. 18, 2010. The plaintiff asserted that this document was forged, but the fact that the stamp image affixed on the plaintiff's name was affixed is based on the plaintiff's seal, the authenticity of the part in the plaintiff's name was presumed to have been established since there is no dispute between the parties, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the forgery. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted), Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 31-2, and Eul evidence No. 32, and the purport of the whole pleadings, taking into account the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 23 and the first instance trial held.