1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 24, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the fourth and fifth floors (hereinafter “instant building”) of the building on the ground of Kuri-si owned by the Defendant with a deposit deposit of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000, and the lease period from October 24, 2014 to October 24, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Plaintiff filed a report on sports facility business for the operation of a fitness, and the said report was available only when the use of the instant building was a neighborhood living facility. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the five floors of the instant building were the use of the general building ledger as a detached house.

Accordingly, at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a special agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “special agreement of this case”) stating that “the lease portion as of the date of the instant lease agreement is registered as a neighborhood living facility, a house, or the alteration of the use of the five-story housing portion into a neighborhood living facility (hereinafter referred to as “instant alteration of use”) is the Defendant’s life cycle.

C. On November 25, 2014, the Plaintiff sought a report on the change of the purpose of use and sports facility business by visiting the Gu Ri viewing on November 25, 2014. However, the Plaintiff was eventually subject to the return of the change of use and sports facility business report on the fifth floor of the instant building on the ground that the instant five floors were illegal buildings, and the Plaintiff did not report the change of use and sports facility business on the fifth floor of

In this regard, from around 2015, the Gu Council sent a public letter to the effect that “The 5th floor of the instant building is illegal, and thus, the health room business is restored to its original state, and if it is not implemented, a penalty may be imposed.”

On June 30, 2015, the Plaintiff suspended the operation of the above health care center.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff.