The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the written evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant housing”) on October 31, 2014, with respect to KRW 120 million as to the lease deposit, from December 15, 2014 to December 14, 2016, and KRW 10 million as to the contract deposit and the down payment of KRW 110 million as of December 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and on the same day, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to pay KRW 10 million as of November 30, 2014, respectively (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant house is located in a remote area where the interior pipes are removed, and the number of walls is under way. The Defendant’s failure to obtain approval for completion of the instant house by the completion date or the remainder payment date as stipulated in the instant lease agreement, making it impossible for the Plaintiff to use the instant house in accordance with its purpose.

As the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in the instant case cancels the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the foregoing nonperformance, the Defendant is obligated to return the amount of the down payment to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the expenses of director and director-at-law custody, etc. as compensation for damages.

3. According to the records in Gap evidence No. 7, the fact that registration of ownership preservation was completed on March 9, 2015, but it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was leakage due to the internal pipeline distribution to the extent that it is impossible to move into the housing of this case solely with the records and images of Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 6-1, and 6-2, and the fact that the completion inspection on the housing of this case was delayed, it is readily concluded that the defendant failed to perform its duty to provide the housing of this case in a condition that it can be used for profit.