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. Basic facts

A. In around 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 217 (hereinafter “instant store”), setting the rent as KRW 700,000 per month without a deposit, and around that time, the Defendant entered into a sublease agreement with C on the instant store and used the said store.

B. Meanwhile, from October 2013 to the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not pay that the Plaintiff was the tea on December 2, 2013 and January 2014, while paying the tea directly to the Plaintiff.

C. On June 10, 2014, the Defendant confirmed that the unpaid amount of the instant store as of June 10, 2014 is KRW 1.4 million, and repaid the unpaid amount by the end of September 2014, and the rent and management expenses incurred after June 10, 2014, which the Defendant promised not to pay, are “each of the instant notes”, and “each of the instant notes.”

“Preparation and delivery” was made and made.

Then, the Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff on September 30, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 1.4 million won in total, and to pay 5% per annum as prescribed in the Civil Act from October 1, 2014 to January 24, 2016, the day following the due date for the delivery of a copy of the complaint in this case, and 15% per annum as prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment.

3. Defendant’s assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that, on September 1, 2014 and October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid each of KRW 700,000 to the Plaintiff, and that all of the obligations under the instant text were repaid. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 2, the Defendant’s each of the 700,000 won paid by the Defendant on September 1, 2014 and October 1, 2014 can be recognized as being the rent for August 1, 2014 and September 1, 2014, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant is the plaintiff.