1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The decision of the court of first instance is in accordance with paragraph 1.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts is as follows: “The Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiff to the firstman on July 2017, between the third and third instances of the judgment of the first instance.”

In addition, "other than adding, the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance are the same as the reasons for the decision of the court of first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant calculated the Plaintiff’s monthly rent of 7.8 million won from March 20, 2016 to April 19, 2017 (i.e., KRW 6., KRW 50,500,000 for the period from March 20, to April 19, 2017; KRW 6.5 million for the alteration of use borne by the Defendant; KRW 1.5 million for the Plaintiff’s remainder payment; KRW 1.5 million for the waterproof construction cost, 1.5 million for the Plaintiff’s remainder payment (i.e., KRW 6., KRW 50,50,00 for the alteration of use of the down payment) (i.e., KRW 7., KRW 7.8 million; KRW 265,000 for the above 2.6 million for the period from April 20, 2017) and KRW 2.6 million for the first half to July 26017, 2017.

7. There is a duty to pay an amount of undue profit equivalent to the rent of 20 days up to September 20 (30 days).

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s expenses for waterproof construction are KRW 3 million and the alteration of the purpose of use are KRW 2 million and that due to the Plaintiff’s wrongful reversal of agreement, the Defendant was unable to receive KRW 9 million, which was paid from the revenue, as the facility cost, etc., due to the Plaintiff’s wrongful reversal of agreement. However, if the Defendant settled or deducts the expenses for waterproof construction, the cost of water control construction, the alteration of purpose of use, and the compensation for damages due to the destruction of agreement,

The written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the defendant's assertion, and there is no other evidence to prove it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant is not paid to the plaintiff.