1. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff’s claim added and expanded in the trial, are as follows.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 17, 2012, the Plaintiff, on the part of the Defendant, set the rent of KRW 2,700,00 per month (excluding value-added tax) and from August 8, 2012 to June 2013, the place of use as the place of use as the reconstruction site (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”) of the Kudong Construction Site in Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “instant site”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The Defendant set up four out 10 of the list 10 in the workshop and used it at the site of this case, and the remaining six of the list were kept at a separate place.

C. 1) On July 26, 2013, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that “the use of the instant other worker is terminated on July 30, 2013,” but did not refund the instant other worker until July 30, 2013, and on September 28, 2013, the Plaintiff again notified the Plaintiff that “the use of the instant other worker is terminated on October 5, 2013.” (2) The Plaintiff concluded a contract with the Plaintiff to lease the instant other worker’s rent of KRW 7,00,000 (excluding value-added tax) from around 6, 2013 to October 10, 2013 (excluding value-added tax); (2) from around 10, 2013 to August 28, 2013 to around 10, 300,300,300,3000 won (value-added tax) of the sales fee from around 10, 2013 to September 16, 2013

The Plaintiff, around October 17, 2013, returned four mastheads of the instant athletes at the instant site, and thereafter recovered in lieu of three mastheads at other construction sites, etc. from November 30, 2013, on the ground that the remaining three mastheads presented by the Defendant were not well-known.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is the Defendant.