1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) No. 1-B 6 (No. 2, 15) of the first instance judgment (“Lease”) is for the reason of the judgment; (b) No. 1 (No. 30,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000; and (c) No. 3,50,000 from September 11, 201 to September 11, 2015; and (d) the F used to lease the building of this case with the name of E to operate the cropicator; and (d) [Evidence No. 3, 13, and 14] description / [Evidence No. 11, 14] description; (d) description No. 1 through 4, 700,000, monthly rent of 30,500,000; and (e) description No. 2); (e) description No. 1 through 63, evidence No. 5, 14, 7 and 14 of the overall statement.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on July 1, 2013, and the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to order the instant building.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, such as acceptance of the grounds for deduction, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder deposit of KRW 43,000,000,000 after deducting the sum of the rent for May and June 2013, which the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff (=3,500,000 x 2) from the remainder of the lease deposit, and damages for delay.

B. (1) Whether the Defendant’s assertion, etc. is entitled to deduction the cost of restoration (A) the Defendant asserts that KRW 31,896,000 shall be deducted from the cost of restoring to the original state the facilities, etc. described in paragraph (d) of the above Article, which were removed or replaced during the lease contract period, since the Defendant agreed to restore to the original state before June 20, 201 when the lease contract of this case is terminated.

(B) The contract period of the instant lease contract is the Plaintiff.