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. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: Eul 6-9 (including serial numbers)'s written evidence for lack of evidence for the defendant's argument; Eul 6-9's written evidence for lack of evidence; Eul 1-2's written evidence for lack of evidence for the defendant's argument; the third 3-party 19's written judgment of the court of the first instance "E Station 1" "lease 3"; the third 9-party 3 and 10-party 7 "A" "A" "A" "A and public relations group"; the second 11-party 2's written evidence for lack of evidence for the defendant's argument; the second 10-party 20's written judgment below.

Pursuant to paragraph 2, paragraph 12, paragraph 4, following

See each such content as is specified in paragraph 2, and

This is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of judgment like Paragraph (1), and such judgment is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The addition;

A. On the 10th page 20, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff may exercise the right of defense of simultaneous performance against the Plaintiff seeking the delivery of the instant commercial building, on the ground that the Plaintiff could receive a refund of KRW 59,428,940, excluding the unpaid rent and late payment charge 111,871,060 from the payment deposit.

Therefore, Article 9(a) of the instant lease agreement provides that “if the Plaintiff transfers the leased facilities to the original state after the termination of this contract, the Plaintiff shall immediately return the deposit to the original state.” As such, the lessee’s obligation to return the leased facilities is stipulated as the first contractual obligation to perform the first contractual obligation. However, the provision stipulating the above obligation to perform the first contractual obligation does not constitute unfair contractual terms and thus becomes effective. The third court ruling below

B. The defendant's assertion that A can exercise the right of defense of simultaneous performance is without merit, as seen in paragraph (3).

B. On the 12th page, the part following the 4th page also added to the Plaintiff as a penalty for breach of contract deposit under the instant lease agreement.