1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim extended in the trial are dismissed.

2. After filing an appeal.

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 the part concerning the dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In the second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the apartment as stated in the Disposition No. 1-A (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) is “a apartment as stated in the Claim No. 1-A (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”)”.

The third step from the third step of the judgment of the first instance court to the third step shall be added as follows:

“E. However, the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 251 million and occupied the apartment of this case at will on June 3, 2013 without paying the remainder of the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, and the fourth decision of the first instance court of the case was made as follows.

The Defendant’s assertion 1) granted E (one person G) the authority to comprehensively act on behalf of the Plaintiff regarding the instant lease agreement.

Accordingly, with respect to the payment of the balance of lease deposit between E and the Plaintiff’s substitute, the Defendant agreed to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 150 million out of the balance of the lease deposit on June 3, 2013, and shall move into the apartment of this case. In such a case, the Plaintiff shall cancel the right to collateral security and right to lease on a deposit basis. The Plaintiff shall cancel the remainder of the lease deposit (i.e., KRW 251 million - KRW 150 million - KRW 150 million).”

The Defendant paid KRW 150 million to E on June 3, 2013 in accordance with the above agreement and moved into the apartment of this case. The Plaintiff did not cancel the right to collateral security and right to lease on a deposit basis despite having been paid KRW 150 million. Thus, until the Plaintiff cancelled the right to collateral security and right to lease on a deposit basis, the Defendant may refuse the payment of KRW 100,000,000,000,000.

Therefore, the defendant did not perform his obligation, and the plaintiff did not perform his obligation.