1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

(b).

1. The relevant part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited.

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. This part of the judgment on a counterclaim by the defendant shall be cited in the relevant part of the judgment of the court of first instance (the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act), but shall be dismissed or added as follows.

- Of the fourth page 3 of the first instance judgment, “as seen in Section A2 below,” “as seen in Section A3,” is deleted as follows: “A shall take account of the overall purport of the arguments in the entry in Section A3.” - Of the first page 10 and 11, “this may be assessed as a defense ex post facto deduction, etc., as seen in Section 2 below.”

- Under the same page, the following parts shall be inserted:

[A] The Plaintiff asserts that when the Defendant obtained a loan of KRW 15 million from the time of entering into a lease agreement, the Plaintiff provided joint and several sureties by the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay the balance of the sales claim inevitable because it failed to perform its joint and several sureties even though it had been designed to resolve the joint and several sureties by March 2017. However, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Defendant promised to settle the joint and several sureties until March 2017, and there is no ground to support that it would be a ground for refusing to pay the balance of the sales claim. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit) - If the first instance judgment No. 4 of the first instance judgment, the third action is deleted from the third action following the fifth to the fifth.

- The third to the third to the seventh of the first instance judgment, following the third to the third to the third to the following [].

[1] Since August 11, 2017 when the lease contract was terminated due to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff from August 11, 2017 to November 16, 2017 when the original lease term expires.