1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 9,430,000 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto, from October 7, 2015 to August 31, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is a person who leased the first floor of the building in Daegu-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from the Korea Scholarship Association, which is an incorporated foundation, and operates a D restaurant (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

B. On June 21, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the instant restaurant at KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 500,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The details of the instant lease agreement are as follows.

The method of payment of deposit - The first payment date and amount: June 20, 2015; KRW 5,000,000; the second payment date and amount: July 4, 2015; KRW 5,00,000; and other details - The above contract shall be decided to proceed or take over at present as of April 30, 2016.

The amount at the time of acceptance shall be KRW 1,000,000,000, including premium, facility cost, and deposit money.

-to return the passbook at the time of unpaid tax, public charges and operating expenses once;

C. On June 19, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 9,430,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,430,000 on July 1, 2015, and KRW 3,000,000, including food ingredients, on July 2, 2015.

The Defendant did not deliver to the Plaintiff the instant restaurant sales passbook, liquor settlement account number, key, etc., and did not report the sales amount, expenditure amount, etc. from June 22, 2015, which the Plaintiff had to operate, and did not deliver the profits, the account book was delayed with the delivery of other conditions.

E. On July 15, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) notarized the instant lease agreement; and (b) paid the second security deposit.

However, on July 15, 2015, the Defendant did not leave the place of promise on the date of the second deposit payment, and on the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant expressed their intention not to perform the instant lease contract in telephone conversations, and thereafter, the Defendant operated the instant restaurant independently.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, A(1) through (3)