Representative Market00

Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant 000

Law Firm 00 Attorney in charge of 000

The representative of the Gu 000

Attorney Lee In-bok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs of supplementary participation.

A. On April 16, 2004, the Plaintiff prepared a written agreement for use (No. 1; hereinafter referred to as "the instant agreement") in order to lease part of the above viewing assembly facilities with the permission of the Minister of Culture and Tourism on the installation and operation of the bicycle outside counter (TV race) from the 1,628.87 square meters of neighborhood living facilities, excluding the 80.34m square meters of neighborhood living facilities, among the 2,429.21 square meters of the total floor area of the 6th floor above the 1st 4,307.80 square meters above the 1,55th 4,000 square meters above the 1,628.204 square meters above the 1,628.21 square meters above the 1st 200-gu, 00-dong, 360-dong, and 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3,007.

B. On June 10, 2004, the Plaintiff obtained permission for the installation of a bicycle race track on the condition that the part of the above viewing and assembly facilities by the Minister of Culture and Tourism alone shall include the alteration of use to cultural and assembly facilities up to 800.34 meters of neighborhood living facilities among the five floors of the above building (hereinafter “instant alteration of use”).

C. On August 10, 2004, the Plaintiff sent a public notice to the Defendant stating that “the Plaintiff will change the use of the part of the above neighborhood living facilities, including the part of the neighboring neighborhood living facilities, but the building owner will open the said part after obtaining permission from the Minister of Culture and Tourism.” The Plaintiff sent a public notice to the Defendant on August 16, 2004, stating that “The Plaintiff’s opinion was interfered with the business due to the conclusion of the lease agreement under the instant agreement by giving notice to the Minister of Culture and Tourism until August 16, 2004.” In addition, the Plaintiff attached the lease agreement (draft No. 3-2,

○ Contract Terms

○ Contract Area: All the fifth floor;

0 Contract Amount: Deposit KRW 28.5 million monthly rent of KRW 1 billion (terms and conditions of increase by 10% per year)

0. Paragraph 1 of Article 5: Lease contracts shall be executed by the defendant on the conditions of permission for the establishment of outdoor counter.

shall be submitted in such manner that it does not impede the opening of a grave and before the alteration of use is made.

D. On December 7, 2004, the Defendant reported the change of the use of this case to the head of the Seo-gu, the representative of the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor”) who is the representative of the Defendant’s Intervenor (hereinafter “the Intervenor”), and the Defendant’s Intervenor accepted the report on the change of the use of this case on December 10, 204.

E. On December 10, 2004, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the contract term of 7 years, deposit amount of 1 billion won to 2.9 billion won, and monthly rent of 28.5 billion won to 45 million won (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At the Defendant’s request, Article 5(1), which was included in the said contract’s (draft), was deleted, but the cost sharing statement of this case, which existed from the instant agreement, was attached.

F. After the conclusion of the above lease agreement, the Defendant delivered the instant 4 and 5th floor buildings to the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid KRW 1 billion deposit to the Defendant on December 22, 2004, and the Defendant paid the monthly rent between December 17, 2004 and December 21, 2005.

G. However, on May 11, 2005, after the receipt of the report on the change of the use of this case, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor notified the Defendant that he will only use the wedding hall for the purpose of the wedding hall, such as the report on the change of the use of this case, and that if he is forced to install the bicycle outside counter, he will revoke the report on the change of the use of this case. On May 25, 2005, the Defendant issued a disposition to revoke the report on the change of the use of this case on May 25, 2005 (hereinafter “the disposition to revoke the disposition to revoke the report on the change of use of this case’s use of this case’s case’s case’s case’s case’s case of the building ① is a wedding hall, with a large volume of traffic, and ② is likely to cause serious traffic congestion at the time of the installation of the bicycle outside counter, because the bicycle race is made in the form of image, rather than the lez.

H. Accordingly, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the head of Seogu District Court No. 2005Guhap000 on the ground that the instant disposition of revocation was unlawful, and the said court rendered a judgment on June 14, 2006 on the ground that the instant disposition of revocation was unlawful. The said judgment became final and conclusive on May 28, 2009 through Daegu High Court No. 2006 and Supreme Court No. 2007Du00000.

I. Even after the above judgment, the supplementary intervenor still shows a negative attitude toward changing the purpose of use for the installation of bicycle racing outdoor counter because of the issue of traffic and educational environment, etc., and the plaintiff and the defendant are only responsible for the public interest and have concerns over the possibility of additional cost-bearing and approval for use, and they are not active business progress.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the result of inquiry into the facts to the head of the Daegu-gu Office of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In the instant lease agreement, even though the Defendant, the owner of the building, agreed to pay for the instant change of the purpose of use, the Defendant did not permit the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant building 4 and 5 floors for a bicycle-line store for the purpose of lease on July 31, 2009, on the ground that the Defendant did not permit the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant building 4 and 5 floors for a bicycle-line store for the purpose of lease for five years after the date of conclusion of the contract.

B. Therefore, the Defendant shall, upon the Defendant’s request, pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 1 billion (60,500,000,000,000,000 for non-performance of the obligation to compensate for damages; ① the total amount of KRW 398,913,00 for non-performance of the obligation to compensate for damages; ④ the fixed-term personnel expenses of employees employed in preparation for the establishment of non-exclusive bicycle sales shops; ③ the cost of establishing a right to collateral security to secure the return of a lease deposit; ② the cost of establishing a right to collateral security to secure the return of a lease deposit; ② the cost of KRW 79,050,050 for administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition of cancellation of the instant case (the cost of attorney-at-law 6,250,000 + the appraisal cost of traffic impact assessment 16,500,000,000 for the change of the purpose of use; and

3. Determination as to the defendant's default of obligation

First, as to whether the Defendant, the owner of the building, agreed to assume the responsibility under the instant lease agreement, the building owner should report the change of the purpose of the building and the application for a witness under the relevant laws, such as the Building Act, etc., and the Defendant did not apply for the approval of change of purpose of use to be made after the report was accepted, and the Defendant stated in the instant statement of cost-bearing attached to the lease agreement that the building owner is required to obtain from the building owner in the relevant laws and regulations, such as the supplement of the matters of authorization, permission, approval, supplement of the matters of authorization, corrective measures, and the cost of approval according to corrective measures, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to cooperate with each other for the change of purpose of use of the instant building does not conflict between the parties.

However, the circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the above quoted evidence and the purport of oral argument, i.e., ① the instant building was originally used as a wedding building; the Plaintiff’s use of the instant building was excluded from the leased part of the viewing assembly facility pursuant to the Plaintiff’s purpose; ② the Plaintiff’s use of the portion of the instant building excluding the part of neighborhood living facilities on the fourth and fifth floors in the instant agreement, etc., was limited to the leased part. The Plaintiff’s use of the instant building was included in the terms of cultural and assembly facilities as a condition for permission to change its use to the above part, and the Plaintiff’s use of the instant building was required to be included in the Plaintiff’s construction of the traffic impact assessment facility; ④ The Plaintiff’s use of the instant building was delayed due to the need for the Plaintiff’s alteration of use to whom the Plaintiff had been responsible for the instant change of use was made under the name of the Plaintiff’s traffic impact assessment facility; ④ The Plaintiff’s use of the instant building was removed from the Plaintiff’s construction of the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is responsible for the change of the purpose of this case is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Freeboard Kim

x. Jark Sick Number