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 reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: each "wit witness" of not more than 2.17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "wit witness of the court of first instance"; "No.18" as "B" of the court of first instance, "No.13. 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance" as "B," which is the date of the pronouncement of the judgment of the court of first instance, "No. 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance," and the plaintiff's additional arguments at the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the cases as described in the second.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated or revoked on the following grounds. A) The Defendant did not fully inform the Plaintiff of the fact that the instant lease agreement included a corridor as a section for common use among the entire area of the leased object due to the failure to deliver the design drawings to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, since part of the leased object cannot be used or used for other reasons without the lessee’s negligence, and the remaining part cannot achieve the purpose of the lease, the Plaintiff may terminate the instant lease agreement pursuant to Article 627 of the Civil Act. On April 18, 2012, upon the Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the lease agreement, the instant lease agreement was legally terminated.

B) Even if not, due to the Defendant’s above non-notification, the Plaintiff was at least misunderstanding the location and boundary of the store, which is the leased object, and this constitutes a juristic act that may be revoked by mistake as to the important part of the juristic act. The Plaintiff’s notice of termination of the lease agreement includes the intent of revocation of the lease agreement on April 18, 2014, and thus, the instant lease agreement was lawfully revoked. (2) The judgment was made on April 18, 2014 under Article 627 of the Civil Act.