1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On April 10, 2013, between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the addition or modification as stated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this case is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Following the Decision 10, 10, 21, 100, 100, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000, 1000,0000

The following shall be added to 18 lines of the 11th judgment of the first instance.

④ The Defendant asserted that the instant notice of termination sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on May 31, 2014 constitutes a false conspiracy and thus null and void, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

The following shall be added to 13 pages of the decision of the first instance:

In addition, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff did not pay the rent and management expenses under the lease agreement of this case for five months from December 2013 to April 2014, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 20 and 21, the plaintiff paid the rent and management expenses of each of the lease contracts of this case to the defendant during the above period, and the defendant issued a tax invoice for the rent and management expenses corresponding to the above period. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The following shall be added to five lines of the fifteenth decision of the first instance:

(A) On the other hand, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that the Ansan Center acquired permission only as a normal temperature warehouse, and limited the installation of a freezing warehouse under each of the instant lease agreements, and thus, the transfer expenses for the freezing warehouse installed by the Plaintiff at will should be excluded from the amount of damages, but the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion to the effect that two to eighteenth of the 16th judgment of the first instance court should be revised as follows:

(c) tort.