1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and that part shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 28, 2007, the Defendant and the Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial (hereinafter referred to as the “C”) leased the six-story restaurant (hereinafter referred to as the “instant restaurant”) of the instant hospital to KRW 650,000,00 from around January 2008, the Plaintiff and the first instance trial co-defendant C (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant et al”), who were the representative of the Nam-gu Incheon and the G Hospital located in the F Hospital (hereinafter referred to as the “instant hospital”) under the name of C, to cancel the said lease on the grounds that they operated the restaurant for the hospital and the hospital patients and operated the restaurant for the hospital and the hospital patients on the grounds that they were fluenite, etc.

B. Around October 2, 2008, the Defendant, etc. issued KRW 50,00,000 as the down payment for the termination of the said lease from H, the actual operator of the instant hospital, as the down payment for the said lease, but did not receive any refund of the deposit.

On November 28, 2008, H issued respectively a promissory note with the face value of 200,000,000, the due date of January 30, 2009, and the face value of 450,000,000, and the due date of March 30, 2009 for the return of the lease deposit to C. The promissory note with the purport of recognizing the compulsory execution on the same day was written.

H As the face value amount was not paid until the due date of the Promissory Notes, C was granted an execution clause based on the said Promissory Notes No. 27, 2009.

C. While the Defendant et al. was aware of the person to take over the instant restaurant in order to refund the lease deposit, the Defendant et al. received the Plaintiffs through I around December 2008. The Plaintiffs did not take over the instant restaurant on the ground that the sales amount at the time was low.

However, after hearing the awareness that the sales amount of the instant restaurant increased from I, around March 2009, the Plaintiffs visited the instant restaurant again from the Defendant, etc. and confirmed the sales amount, etc. after receiving monthly food collection table prepared by the Defendant, etc. from the Defendant, etc., and then take over the instant restaurant at KRW 650,000,000,000 for lease deposit with the Defendant, etc. around April 30, 2009.