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. 제1심판결의 인용 이 법원의 판결이유는, 제1심판결 제4쪽 밑에서 두 번째 행 “불구하ㅗ”를 “불구하고”로, 제5쪽 제11행 “그후부너”를 “그후부터”로 각 고치고, 원고가 이 법원에서 추가하는 주장에 관하여 다음의 '2. 추가판단'을 추가하는 것 외에는 제1심판결 이유와 같으므로, 민사소송법 제420조 본문에 의하여 이를 그대로 인용한다

[The first instance court's findings and determination are justifiable, even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court showed evidence Nos. 29, 30 (including paper numbers) submitted by the Plaintiff in this court, and the first instance court's findings and determination are added] 2.

A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant’s business partnership agreement (hereinafter “instant business partnership agreement”)

(2) However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone cannot be deemed as an unfair contract, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant business agreement is a very unfair contract. Thus, the Plaintiff’s representative director’s revocation or termination on January 3, 2018.

The plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

B. 1) The Plaintiff asserts that the instant agreement reached a conclusion of a contract that could not be observed due to the Defendant’s delivery of the notification as of January 10, 2018, and the Defendant’s accusation as of February 5, 2018, etc. (2) However, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant agreement was reversed solely on the delivery of the said notification or the Defendant’s complaint as to D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the agreement was destroyed. Even if the agreement was destroyed due to the destruction of trust relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it cannot be said that the Defendant’s right to use the ground floor of the instant building expires.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2015Da72385 Decided December 13, 2018). The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is justifiable.