1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the parts to be cited in the relevant part or to be additionally determined as the grounds for appeal, and thus, it shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the "Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance" shall be written with the "Evidence Nos. 1 through 5" of the judgment of the court of first instance.

From 7th to 8th of the judgment of the first instance court, the following shall be followed.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that there is a justifiable reason for not paying rent based on the right of defense of anxiety under Article 536(2) of the Civil Act, since the term of the instant sub-lease contract was not guaranteed by the Defendants.

On the other hand, Article 536(2) of the Civil Act provides that, even if one of the parties to a bilateral contract is liable to perform the obligation first to the other party, “where there is a substantial reason to make it difficult for the other party to perform” has the right to defense against the non-performance. Here, “any reason to make it difficult for the other party to perform” refers to a situation where the debtor, who is liable to perform the prior performance, is unable to receive any counter-performance due to such reasons as the creditor’s credit unrefeasibleness or the aggravation of financial status after the contract is concluded, and thereby making the debtor perform the prior performance obligation pursuant to the terms of the original contract go against the fairness and the good faith principle. Whether there is such reason should be determined by taking into account the circumstances of both parties (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da93025, Mar. 29, 2012). Since the lessor’s obligation to use and benefit from the object and the lessee’s obligation to pay the leased object mutually, the lessor is obligated to use and benefit.