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. In addition to adding the following judgments as to the defendant's argument added in the trial, the reasons for this court's explanation are as follows: therefore, it is identical to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

[Supplementary Parts]

A. On October 23, 2015, the Defendant agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit on the condition that the Defendant withdraws a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff, and the Defendant withdraws a criminal complaint against the Plaintiff as agreed, and accordingly, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. However, as there is no evidence to acknowledge that there was an agreement to withdraw the lawsuit between the original Defendant and the Defendant, the said assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts that, around August 9, 2013, the original Defendant extinguished the instant sales contract and concluded the instant lease contract, which constitutes a novation contract, and thus, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the remainder of the purchase and sale based on the instant sales contract was extinguished.

In light of Article 6(2) of the instant lease agreement (No. 2 of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff rent not later than the time when the instant lease agreement has been rescinded or when the instant movable property is stolen or damaged, and Article 8 of the instant lease agreement provides that “the Defendant shall notify the Plaintiff of the rent not later than two months prior to the payment of the remaining purchase and sale amount of KRW 80 million,” and Article 11 of the instant lease agreement provides that “if the Defendant pays the Plaintiff the remaining purchase and sale amount of KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff, all the contract shall be rescinded.” It is reasonable to view that the instant lease agreement is null and void and it is difficult to conclude a new contract, and it is reasonable to view that it continued to have the effect of the instant lease agreement, and that the Defendant used the instant movable property as a leased lease until the purchase and sale amount has been paid to the Defendant, and otherwise, evidence exists regarding the effect of the instant lease agreement between the original Defendant and the Defendant.