1. The plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

This Court's reasoning is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court's reasoning is accepted by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Standards for the settlement of sale price and the scope of obligations for sale price;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant lease agreement plans the settlement of the purchase price following the increase or decrease in the size of the store determined by lot. Of the sale price, the “the remainder of the sale price excluding rental deposit” shall be settled in proportion to the increase or decrease rate of the “exclusive area” pursuant to Article 4(1) of the instant lease sale agreement. On the other hand, the “rental deposit” shall be settled in proportion to the increase or decrease rate of the leased area added to the exclusive use area pursuant to Article 5(1). Meanwhile, the exclusive use area stipulated in the instant lease agreement is 3.9 square meters and the standard sale area is 13.2 square meters. 2 square meters. The exclusive use area of the instant D store allocated by the Defendant through lot is 3.9 square meters, and the sale area added thereto is 16.8 square meters.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,658,00 (38,50,000 x 16.8 m2 x 16.8 m2 x 13.22 m2 x 13.22 m2) and the amount payable out of the first sale price following the increase in the area of the rental deposit.

B. In light of the relevant provisions of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”), the term “sale area” in the latter part of Article 5(1) of the Lease Sale Contract in the instant case should be deemed to mean only the “exclusive area” rather than the area added to the common area.

Therefore, the total sale price, including the rental deposit, should be settled in proportion to the increase and decrease rate of exclusive use area.

C. In full view of the evidence submitted in relation to the developments leading up to the allocation of the official area that is not proportional to the exclusive use area by the non-party union, the non-party union is against the divided store on May 15, 2006.