임대차보증금
1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).
purport, purport, and.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases where Article 2-B (1) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. We first examine whether the Defendants did not perform their duty to permit the change of the use of the instant office to the Plaintiff.
At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the remainder of the lease deposit after authorization and permission. On February 28, 2012, the Plaintiff paid the remainder to the Defendants on February 29, 2012, the following day after obtaining permission for change of the purpose of use for Class I neighborhood living facilities. Meanwhile, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as to whether the Defendants agreed to obtain permission for change of the purpose of use for the instant office as a residential business facility group, the Plaintiff appears to have paid the remainder after confirming that the Defendants obtained permission for change of the purpose of use for neighborhood living facilities as to the instant office, as seen earlier, and only on January 22, 2013, immediately before the expiration of the instant lease term, the Plaintiff notified the Defendants of the cancellation of the instant lease agreement, and there was no special reason to deem that the Plaintiff did not have any jurisdiction over the instant office or the Defendants received any criminal charges, such as the Plaintiff’s order for change of the purpose of use, while obtaining new permission for change of the purpose of use for the instant office for a considerable period.