1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the part of the instant lease agreement with the Defendant, excluding laundry from the part of the first floor of the instant building in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant building”) which was located in the part of the instant building (hereinafter “instant building”) in Busan Metropolitan City, with the Defendant, that the leased object is “the first floor” but, notwithstanding its description, there is no dispute between the parties that the leased object was excluded from laundry on the first floor.

(hereinafter “instant store”) entered into a lease agreement with a deposit deposit of KRW 20,00,00, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000, and the lease term of KRW 20,000 from December 3, 2013 to December 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On the same day, the Defendant paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant.

B. Paragraph 1 of Paragraph 1 of the Special Agreement attached to the above lease agreement provides about 30 square meters of the store of this case and cooperate with the agreement necessary for the opening of the store in the name of the lessee.

The term "" is written as "."

C. The Plaintiff did not pay monthly taxes to the Defendant, except for each payment of KRW 1,100,000,000 on January 6, 2014, and KRW 1,100,000 on March 14, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant lease agreement states the size of the store in this case on 30 square meters. However, the entire size of the first floor of the instant building is 105.85 square meters (per approximately 32 square meters) and, excluding approximately 7 square meters among the 1st floor of the instant building, the actual horizontal plane is not more than 25 square meters. Since the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the size of the instant store by additionally cutting down the size of the instant building, the instant lease agreement should be null and void or revoked. (2) Since part of the instant building was an unauthorized building, the Plaintiff cannot obtain permission for the sale of refined land and tobacco, making it practically impossible to operate Maw.

The plaintiff.