1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 10, 2017, Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of each of the instant contracts in writing, and the delivery and restoration was completed on June 26, 2017. Accordingly, each of the instant contracts was terminated around that time.

Therefore, at KRW 40 million, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,050,000 (i.e., KRW 650,000, monthly rent of KRW 650,000) as stipulated in the contract for the lease of the instant office (i.e., KRW 40,000), and the amount of KRW 1,595,00,00 (including additional tax) calculated by deducting respectively the sum of the rent, management expenses, and rent of KRW 1,595,00, Jul. 1, 2017 (including additional tax) (i.e., KRW 40,00,000 - KRW 1,50,000 - KRW 1,595,00) as well as damages for delay.

B. Defendant (1) The instant office lease contract and the instant rooftop use contract should be determined by a single contract. Each of the instant contracts constitutes a standardized contract, and the provisions of Article 12(1)3 of the said contract are null and void since they lose fairness as a clause unfairly unfavorable to customers under Article 6(2)1 of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”). Since they are clauses that are likely to unfairly disadvantage customers by granting the right to terminate the contract not prescribed by the Act to the business operator under Article 9(2)2 of the Terms and Conditions Act, they are null and void.

Therefore, each of the instant contracts shall continue to exist until August 31, 2018, which is the expiration date of the initial contract.

(2) In addition, on March 11, 2018, the Plaintiff did not remove only 9M-type steel towers installed on the instant rooftop and did not remove the brin cable, and did not fulfill its duty of delivery and restoration to its original state.

Since the Plaintiff did not pay rent, etc. from June 1, 2017, the Plaintiff paid rent, etc. from KRW 40 million to KRW 1,595 each month until August 31, 2018, which is the expiration date of each of the instant contracts.