1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: the defendant's "the third party's "the third party's "the plaintiff" in the judgment of the court of first instance is used as "the plaintiff"; the defendant's "the defendant's "the third party's "the third party's "the plaintiff" is not sufficient to recognize the defendant's assertion as evidence of the court of first instance is rejected; and the defendant's new assertion is the same as the statement of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance in paragraph (2) below to the new argument of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited

The defendant's additional set-off and simultaneous performance defense, other than each of the buildings of this case, shall also be attached to the Seoul Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

1. Although the instant lease agreement was concluded in order to lease 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, and 10, along with drawing description 10, 110, 12, 16, and 10, the Plaintiff was only delivered each of the instant buildings, and it obstructed the use of D-ground buildings. As such, 568,000 won should be deducted from monthly rent 2,00,000, which is equivalent to the ratio of the size of the instant building. Furthermore, from May 2015, the damages incurred as a result of the failure to sell grain in D-ground buildings were offset against the Plaintiff. Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to deliver each of the instant buildings to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of the lease deposit KRW 18,846,164, and 100,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff. The Defendant is naturally obligated to return the lease deposit received from the Plaintiff without any special circumstances, 97, referring to the amount equivalent to 197,097.