1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 4, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed to use screen golf facilities (hereinafter “instant facilities”) with the Defendant in order to operate screen golf facilities installed within the above volatilen center at around 2008 at the time of acquiring and operating the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Center, and to pay 600,000 won per month to the Defendant on the sixth day of each month in return.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). B.

However, since June 2010, frequent breakdowns occurred in the instant facilities, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair and use the instant facilities and repair the original system defects.

C. Even upon the Plaintiff’s aforementioned request, the Defendant did not repair the system defect of the instant facilities. As such, from April 2012, the Plaintiff was unable to conduct a normal screen golf business due to the defect of the instant facilities, etc., on September 18, 2012, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document verifying the content of the Plaintiff’s request to withdraw the instant facilities in a case where it is difficult to repair the facility defect and take measures to allow the Defendant to normally use the facility defect or to take such measures.

Since then, without taking any measures against the Defendant, the instant contract expired on May 20, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4 (the same shall apply to evidence No. 9), 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. As seen earlier in the legal nature of the instant contract, insofar as the Plaintiff agreed at the time of the instant contract to pay 600,000 won per month to the Defendant for the use of the instant facilities, it is reasonable to deem the instant contract as a lease agreement

Therefore, the defendant's argument that the contract of this case constitutes a loan for use is without merit).

The occurrence of liability for damages, ...