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

1. The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: ① as to the defense before the merits alleged by the defendant in the court of first instance, the following 2.

In addition, the same contents as the entry in the paragraph shall be added, ② the phrase “ alone” in Section 9 of Section 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as “only the statement of circumstances and evidence No. 21,” and ③ the following 2.B of Section 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

4. The Defendant’s assertion in this part of “A evidence 4” in the first instance judgment No. 12, No. 12, 3 is added to “A evidence 4, A 9-1 through 59, and 5. 5.” The Defendant’s assertion in this part of “A evidence 4, A 9-1 through 79,” is added to “the testimony of the witness of the first instance court only for the testimony of the witness of the first instance court,” 6. The deletion of the first instance judgment No. 8 through 20, and 2.3.

In addition to adding the defendant's liability for damages, such as the statement in the port, it is identical to the statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Details to be added; and

A. At the time of October 7, 2012, at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire, the Defendant occupied and used the instant building in operating a restaurant with the trade name “ Q” from the instant building. The Defendant is not an occupant of the instant building, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful, as it is not the Defendant’s qualification.

In a lawsuit for performance, the defendant's standing to be a defendant in a lawsuit for performance is replaced by the plaintiff's own claim, and such judgment is absorbed into the judgment on the propriety of the claim, so the person alleged as the claimant is a legitimate defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da18451, Nov. 28, 1995). Thus, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

Furthermore, the Defendant acknowledges that the Defendant installed a charcoal equipment room to possess structures such as charcoal, etc. (see, e.g., the Defendant’s preparatory brief Nos. 14 and 15, Mar. 2, 2015), and the Defendant’s operation in the instant building.