1. The Defendant successively connected the Plaintiff with the indication 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 of the attached drawings among the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 4, 5, and 7, the plaintiff prepared receipts (Evidence No. 7) to the defendant on May 10, 201, and leased real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 19 million won, monthly rent 200,000 won, and two years for lease. The defendant, while operating a Chinese restaurant in the above real estate, was paid five million won out of the deposit amount of the above real estate from the plaintiff on May 12, 2015 to the plaintiff on May 12, 2015, and the plaintiff was obligated to deliver the remaining deposit money to the plaintiff on July 15, 2015 to the above plaintiff at the rate of KRW 19,000,000,000 among the deposit amount of KRW 19,000,000,0000,000 to the above real estate on May 18, 2015.

2. The defendant's assertion, etc. argues that the plaintiff did not properly repair the above real estate, and that the above real estate cannot be transferred to the plaintiff until the plaintiff is paid the premium and director's expenses. However, according to the Eul's evidence 2, the above real estate can be acknowledged as a building for which approval for use was obtained on August 10, 1989, and each image of Eul's evidence 3 alone has a defect to the extent that the defendant is unable to use the above real estate.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant paid the repair cost, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the Defendant’s premium and director fee to the Plaintiff, a lessor.