1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, since the court's explanation on this case is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except for the modification of the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance according to the defendant's partial acceptance of the offset defense as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The portion of the Court Decision No. 9, No. 5, No. 10, No. 5, and No. 10, No. 5 of the Court Decision No. 9 is amended as follows.

C. 1) On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the remainder of the instant sub-lease deposit is set off against the Defendant’s claim, and that the Defendant would set off against the Plaintiff the remainder of the instant sub-lease deposit: KRW 9,394,519 (i.e., deposit KRW 50,00,000 - 24,022,570, unpaid rent from December 15, 2013 to February 14, 2014 - late rent 962,171 - unpaid rent - unpaid rent 962,171 - unpaid rent 15,620,740) against the Defendant, who is a passive bond, 80,000,000 won. The Plaintiff asserts that the remainder of the instant sub-lease deposit was not set off against the Defendant’s claim for unjust enrichment from 15th to 205,000,0000,000,0000,000.