1. Of the part regarding the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, 155,675,223 won against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications:

[Modification] Part of the first instance court Decision No. 2, the term “instant lease agreement” in the second instance court Decision No. 19 is regarded as “lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

From 4th to 16th to 4th to 12th to 16th to the judgment of the first instance.

“The minimum rental fee provision under the instant lease agreement (12,00,000 won per month)” is a provision which unilaterally forces the Defendant, at the request of the Plaintiff, in superior position without individual negotiations. Accordingly, the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, which is a mandatory law, (hereinafter “Standard Terms and Conditions Regulation Act”).

() Article 6 subparags. 2 and 3, and Article 7 subparag. 2 are null and void in violation of Article 6 subparag. 2 and 7 subparag. 2. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to apply the foregoing provision, which is null and void even from May 2015 to January 2018, to return rent 56,456,438 won in excess of the amount corresponding to 80,000 won x 15% x 15%, to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff, as of May 2015, added “the Plaintiff” as of May 3, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

The following details shall be added to the fifth page of the judgment of the first instance.

“Preliminary, the Plaintiff is obligated to submit accurate sales data in accordance with the instant lease agreement and the principle of good faith, and submission of sales data omitted from credit sales, constitutes nonperformance and tort. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 59,491,203 (unpaid rent from January 2010 to December 2014) not admitted by the lower court out of the amount of damages equivalent to the unpaid rent, and each of the above damage claims has not expired from January 1, 201 to December 2014).