1. The part concerning a counterclaim among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be modified as follows:

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. Determination on the main claim

A. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or adds to the statement in this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following “A. Additional Determination” as to the assertion that the Plaintiff emphasizes or adds to the statement in this court. As such, it is cited by the main sentence of

B. As to the rent for the instant building, the Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the first instance appraiser’s calculation of the rent for the instant building is illegal not by the rent method, but by the hostile method, Article 22 of the Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation provides that “The appraisal business entity shall apply the rent comparison method at the time of an appraisal of rent.” However, Article 12(1) of the Rules on the Appraisal and Evaluation provides that “The appraisal business entity shall make an appraisal by applying the appraisal method by object (hereinafter “the appraisal method”) stipulated in the provisions of Articles 14 through 26: Provided, That where it is difficult or inappropriate to apply the principal method, other appraisal methods may be applied in calculating the rent, other than the rent comparison method, do not exclude the application of the hostile method.”

In addition, according to the above evidence, the first instance appraiser recognized the fact that he appraised the rent by applying the hostile method on the ground that there is no adequate rent example to adopt the comparative method, and it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone has an adequate case to apply the comparative method, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant error in the result of appraisal by the appraiser of the first instance trial who calculated the rent of the building of this case by the hostile method.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The defendant 1, on November 10, 2006, has left in the auction procedure for F real estate rental with the District Court of Jung-gu on November 10, 2006 C.