1. Of the portion of the claim for usage fees in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff lost that constitutes an additional payment order.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff owned a building for entertainment taverns listed in the attached Form C (hereinafter the instant building or for entertainment taverns or call architecture according to the period of the building. However, on July 27, 2007, the Plaintiff, who was the husband of the Plaintiff’s Dong Dong Dong-si, owned a lease deposit of KRW 100,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000, and the lease period from August 1, 2007 to the sale of the instant building (hereinafter the instant lease).

B. On October 18, 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million to D.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 5, purport of whole pleadings

2. Request for rent payment;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not pay a total of KRW 70,086,560 as stated in the attached Table among the rent of KRW 3,00,000 per month that should be paid to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement. As such, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the reduction of KRW 2,80,000 from January 1, 2010 to February 10, 2010, instead of purchasing fire insurance and newly installing electric facilities, the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay part of the rent of KRW 0,00,00,00 which is not payable to the Plaintiff under the instant lease agreement, and the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay part of the rent of KRW 20,00,00,000 from August 20, 201 to November 1, 2017, excluding the remainder of the rent of KRW 90,000,000,000,000,000.