1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a determination on supplement under paragraph (2) as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with

2. The Plaintiff asserts that, after the occurrence of legal dispute between C and the Defendant, the instant contract was terminated on August 2012, the Defendant is obligated to recover the artificial extension apparatus and water purification apparatus located in the instant building. Since the Defendant did not perform this, the Plaintiff is obligated to compensate for damages equivalent to the rent for illegal possession among the instant buildings that the Plaintiff suffered.

According to Gap evidence No. 7, it is confirmed that "the termination of the contract of this case against the defendant's C Association is not effective on the ground that the defendant's failure to perform his/her duty to maintain the contract of this case and to repair the contract of this case is not recognized as a cause attributable to termination of the contract."

Furthermore, in light of health and evidence as to whether the contract of this case has been terminated for any other reason, it is difficult to recognize that C Union and C Union have satisfied the requirements for the termination of the contract of this case (as a result of the statement No. 2, if C Union and the Defendant violate the contract of this case, it can be notified in writing to the other party, and the contract may be rescinded or terminated when they fail to perform the contract within the prescribed period) under the circumstance that C Union and the Defendant have expressed their intent to discontinue the transaction to the Defendant, even if the above facts were to be stated in the evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2, and even if there is a dispute as to the interpretation and implementation of the contract of this case.

Therefore, even if C Union's expression of intent to discontinue the transaction of this case is considered as the expression of intent to terminate the contract of this case.