1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. The Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court Decision 201 Da32788, 201, 27 square meters in storage and 27 others.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement in Gap 1 through 4, the defendant entered into a lease agreement with the plaintiff on November 15, 2016, with regard to the lease deposit amounting to one million won and 70,000 won per month, and 17,000 square meters per annum, which is the store of this case, among 27,5 1,000 square meters and 27,5 1,000,000,000 won, 1,2, 3,4,5, 6,000 won per month, 70,000 won per month, and 12,000 won per month after delivery of the store of this case on November 25, 2016, and the defendant did not pay the money to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff did not pay the money of this case to the plaintiff on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have any special duty to terminate the lease agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff on November 6, 2017,017.

2. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is that the defendant's obligation to pay the rent of this case is the collection obligation, and the unpaid obligation is attributable to the plaintiff.

Although it is alleged that there was a promise to guarantee the business for 5 years at the time of the instant lease agreement, each of the entry in B 3 and 12, which seems consistent, is unilaterally made by the Defendant, and it is difficult to believe the content thereof as it is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the Defendant was guaranteed the Plaintiff to operate the instant store for five years at the instant store, while it was not notified that there was a dispute between the competent Gu office and Campco regarding the use of the site of the instant store, and paid KRW 21,758,00 as the cost of maintaining facilities inside and outside the building, such as the ceiling and floor, walls, etc.