1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification, deletion, or addition as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be corrected, deleted, or added;

A. The grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance

A. The second part of paragraph 5 referred to as “ December 19, 2012” as “ December 19, 2014.”

B. Grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance

(c) eliminate the part described in the second to fifth order by multiplying the date of paragraph 2.

(c) at the end of paragraph 2.(b) of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, as follows:

In the court of the first instance, the Plaintiff revealed that “after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant would use the intermediate payment from the Plaintiff to return the deposit for lease, and that it would not directly deposit the intermediate payment from the Plaintiff to the E account. In addition, there was an uncertain situation as to whether the termination of the registration of the right to lease was properly performed on the outstanding payment date. In addition, after the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff became aware of the establishment of the right to collateral security on the apartment at the Defendant’s domicile and the provisional attachment decision was made on December 4, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s apprehension was increased. On January 2, 2015, 2015, the Plaintiff confirmed that the intermediate payment to be paid to the Defendant was repaid to the Defendant as the obligation to return the deposit for lease, and that the termination of the lease can be made on the outstanding payment date. For this reason, the Plaintiff demanded that D to the Defendant. In such a circumstance, the Plaintiff’s refusal to accept the intermediate payment by D is the place where the instant lease was concluded and the payment place.”

l.p. g., p.