1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid next shall be revoked.

(2).

1. The plaintiff's assertion and its judgment

A. On April 21, 2015, the main point of the argument was that the Plaintiff, from the Defendant-owned the Defendant-owned Cheongju-si Cheongju-si Cheongju-si, set the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million, and the lease period of KRW 1.24 million from May 20, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and subsequently, the Plaintiff, from the Defendant-owned Cheongju-si Cheongju-si Cheongju-si, sold the land-to-E trade name.

Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the full amount of the lease deposit to the former lessee F, and paid KRW 15 million to the former lessee as the cost of equipment, such as shock cases cooling and fishery ice-processing equipment.

However, on April 2016, if the Defendant’s husband G who represented the Defendant delivers the above leased portion to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2016, the Defendant agreed to pay the lease deposit and facility cost KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff.

Although the Plaintiff delivered the leased portion to the Defendant at the end of April 2016, the Plaintiff paid only KRW 2 million out of the leased deposit KRW 30 million and the facility cost, and did not pay the remainder of the facility cost, thereby seeking the remainder of KRW 13 million.

B. The Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant and agreed to pay KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff on April 30, 2016 by delivering the leased portion to the Plaintiff by April 30, 2016 during the instant lease period. The Plaintiff’s delivery of the leased portion to the Defendant on April 30, 2016 may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or the fact that the Plaintiff delivered the leased portion to the Defendant on April 2016, as a whole, on the witness G’s testimony.

Furthermore, it is insufficient to recognize that G agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15 million only with the partial descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 5, or with some testimonys of this court witness G by this court. There is no other evidence.

The plaintiff's assertion is justified within the scope of the above recognition.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.