1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall complete payment to the plaintiff 14,898,000 won and its interest from May 1, 2010.

1. The following facts may be found either as a matter of dispute between the parties or as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings set out in Gap evidence 1 to 6 (including paper numbers):

On June 4, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant for the lease of KRW 65,000,000 for the purchase price as to one unit of the 6th floor above the 6th floor above the Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the exclusive use area of 3.9 square meters and the total sale area of 13.2 square meters).

(2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant, under the lease contract of this case, determined the location of the store by lot after paying the sales price, and settled the sales price according to the increase or decrease in the store size.

(Article I(2). The overdue interest rate for the sale price shall be 19% per annum.

(Article 3). Other important matters are as shown in the annexed sheet.

B. Around February 2010, the Defendant won the 6th 19 square meters above the ground by drawing lots of commercial buildings (hereinafter “instant store”). The exclusive use area of the instant store is 3.9 square meters, and the public use area is 9.79 square meters, and the total sale area is 13.69 square meters.

B. On March 2010, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the sales price, excluding the security deposit, was settled according to the exclusive area (based on 3.9 square meters) and that the security deposit was settled in accordance with the sale area (based on 13.22 square meters), and notified the Defendant of the payment of the amount payable until April 30, 2010.

Fidelity Defendant paid 54,120,000 won to the Plaintiff out of the rent of this case.

C. The Defendant’s lawsuit claiming the return of the rent for the lease of a commercial building as well as the other tenants of the above C commercial building on the ground that the Plaintiff and Drupupup association (hereinafter “rebuilding association”) filed a claim against the Plaintiff as the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap134177 on the ground of the violation of the duty to explain as to the lease contract for the preliminary claim.