1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) paid KRW 47 million to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and against this, from July 21, 2017 to July 25, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 8, 2017, the Defendant purchased a double-story house located in Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant building”) from C and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

At the time, on April 29, 2016, the above building obtained permission to change the use from the head of Yongsan-gu to the Class II neighborhood living facilities (cafeteria) in large-scale repair and housing with the content that the bearing wall is partially dismantled by the head of Yongsan-gu office and the columns and beams are expanded, and the related construction is partially underway and supported.

B. The plaintiff in the same year

4. On April 25, 200, the Defendant and the instant building entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms of KRW 50 million (i.e., the remainder of KRW 20 million, the remainder payment period; KRW 30 million on June 1, 2017), monthly rent of KRW 4.5 million; and the term of lease from April 26, 2017 to April 25, 2022 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and paid the Defendant the down payment of KRW 20 million on the same day.

Under the premise that the Plaintiff uses the instant building, which is a residential building, as a commercial building, the original Defendant stated in the lease agreement that the lessee and the lessee cooperates in order to obtain the change of use. (The term of the construction work shall be two months from April 26, 2017).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including virtual number), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant had a duty to change the purpose of the building of this case into a commercial building, but did not delay the procedure for changing the name of the owner of large-scale repair and did not remove the toilets illegally extended for business permission, septic tanks, etc.

From May 23, 2017, the Plaintiff, instead of Defendant, paid KRW 10,810,000 to the construction cost when removing toilets and installing septic tanks, instead of Defendant, in order to prevent delay in interior works. The Defendant did not change the purpose of use while refusing to pay the construction cost.

The plaintiff for the same year

6.22. Subject matter to the Defendant.