1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

Busan District Court No. 2015No. 478 of the instant lawsuit.

1. The reasons why this Court shall state this part of the facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the “Protocol of Elimination of Lawsuits as shown in the attached Form No. 3, 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance” is referred to as the “Protocol of Elimination of Lawsuits as described in the attached Form No. 3,” and (b) the same page 10, 21 of the same Act is deleted; and (c) the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment, except where the “third party” in the 3th page 24 is referred to as “I.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. After completing the interior construction for the instant store, the Plaintiff applied for a business license to the competent administrative agency for the restaurant business, but could not obtain the business license due to the business license under another person’s name, which was conducted on the second floor shop, and obtained the business license only for the store on August 11, 2015.

In addition, the store of this case was held by the person who asserts the right of retention, and was seriously influent with business by preparing the phrase “in the course of exercising the right of retention” on the store entrance and the wall glass, etc.

Due to the above circumstances, the Plaintiff could not normally use and benefit from the instant store for two months from August 1, 2015, when the lease began to exist to the Defendant from August 1, 2015, until October 1, 2015, and thus, the Plaintiff is not obligated to pay the Defendant rent, etc. in accordance with the instant protocol of conciliation.

In addition, with regard to paragraph (6) of the protocol of conciliation in this case, the plaintiff does not expressly specify the subject of compulsory execution as paragraph (6) of the protocol of protocol, but in light of the content of the protocol of protocol in this case and the contents of the plaintiff's assertion, the plaintiff's cause of claim includes the purport of demanding the refusal of compulsory execution under paragraph (6) of the protocol of protocol in this case. Thus, this part of the plaintiff'

The defendant did not pay the unpaid management expenses of the store of this case to the commercial building management body.