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 of the instant case by the court of the first instance are as stated in paragraph (2). The reasoning for the court’s explanation is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except where a judgment on the Defendant’s argument at the trial is added in paragraph (3). As such, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The second sentence of the first instance judgment “21,098,500 won” in the second sentence shall be deemed “221,089,500 won”.

B. On May 15, 2014, the first instance court’s decision No. 4, 18, “No. 4, 2014,” as “No. 15, 2014.”

C. Part V of the first instance judgment (this Court 2014Gahap39461) appears to be “(the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap39461, the Seoul High Court 2015Na2008313).”

In the first instance judgment, the "date of the closure of pleadings" in the second sentence of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be "date of the closing of pleadings in the trial," and the "date of the closing of pleadings" in the third sentence of the first instance judgment shall be deemed to be "date of the closing of pleadings in the court of first instance."

E. From No. 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, “not delivering the instant store” to “ not delivering the instant store.”

F. In the first instance judgment, the term “the date of the pronouncement of the judgment in this case” is respectively dismissed as “the date of the pronouncement of the judgment in the first instance.”

3. Additional determination

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant lease agreement constitutes a standardized contract under the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions (hereinafter “Terms and Conditions Act”), and thus, should be interpreted in favor of the Defendant, the customer, if the meaning of the terms and conditions or the scope of its application is unclear. As such, the instant lease agreement, which provides the grounds for termination, does not clearly stipulate the scope of Article 26(a)6, may be interpreted as being included in the scope, and thus, the defects in the mere bid process should be interpreted as not falling under the grounds for termination of the instant lease agreement.

(2) The defendant.