1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked and this shall apply.

1. Basic facts

A. H (hereinafter “instant prosperity”) is an organization that has operated the K Hato Campping site at an I bathing beach located in the Yaean-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and the Defendant is a person who has served as the president of the said prosperity from around 2010 to October 8, 2016.

B. Of the above camping Chapter, the Plaintiff leased a facility with a lease term of three years and 30 million won each of the lease deposit (a total of KRW 60 million) (the parties to the lease agreement and the specific contents of the lease agreement are as seen below).

Around the end of 2015, the Plaintiff started business with the delivery of the instant camping site. However, the Plaintiff discontinued business around March 2017 due to the resistance of the owners of the camping site.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (in the case of a unit number, including a unit number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On August 17, 2015, the Plaintiff leased all of the operating rights and facilities of the instant camping site from the Defendant for KRW 30 million.

However, the instant prosperity L, which was located within the said camping Chapter, claimed that the facilities, such as stores, shower containers, repair rooms, etc., are owned by themselves, and demanded additional payment of the lease deposit for the facilities. On November 2015, the instant prosperity concluded a lease contract with a deposit of KRW 60 million for the right to operate the camping site and facilities (hereinafter “second lease contract”).

As the Defendant did not perform its duty to obtain consent from the owners of the camping site so that the Plaintiff can operate the camping site of this case, and failed to perform his/her duty as a lessor, the Plaintiff terminated the said lease by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case. The Plaintiff paid KRW 25 million, which was not returned until now among the lease deposit amounting to KRW 60 million and delayed damages.