1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning of the judgment of this court, such as accepting the judgment of the court of first instance, is as follows, “AM” as “AM for Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant B,” “Defendant B” as “Defendant B,” respectively, and “A” as “Defendant B”. The part concerning “judgment on Defendant B’s argument” as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance other than the following, and thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Re-use Parts

B. The Defendant’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion on simultaneous performance of a partnership is that the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s representative, issued to the Co-Defendant A of the first instance trial, a power of attorney to delegate “all rights concerning the lease agreement and the surrender of the welfare store within the C University” to A, and the Defendant concluded a partnership agreement with M in the first instance trial co-Defendant A of the first instance court, which was delegated by the Plaintiff as to the conclusion of the lease agreement, and thus, the parties to the said partnership agreement are the Plaintiff and the Defendant. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition until the lease deposit amount is returned from the Plaintiff

The plaintiff on April 25, 2012 and the same year

5. On November 1, 201, the first instance court notified the Defendant AB of the termination of the instant consignment contract, but the Defendant notified the Defendant of such termination on April 4, 2013, at least one year thereafter, to the extent that the Defendant lost the opportunity for the Defendant to recover the lease deposit from the Codefendant A, Ltd., and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages equivalent to KRW 200 million. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s request for extradition until the Plaintiff is paid KRW 200 million.

Judgment

l.p. g., p.