1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. On July 17, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 10 million with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant commercial building”), monthly rent of KRW 1 million from November 1, 2016, KRW 1 million from July 17, 2017, and KRW 1.3 million from July 17, 2017 (payment on July 17, 201, and additional tax).

[A] On September 29, 2016, the Defendant received the estimation of internal interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior construction from October 2016 to November 23, 2016.

[B] B and 4] During the above construction period, the Defendant spent KRW 3,325,00 as the repair cost for the public toilets of the first floor where the commercial building of this case is located.

[3] On February 25, 2017, the Defendant transferred KRW 1,105,00 to the Plaintiff monthly rent of KRW 1,105,00 to the Plaintiff, ② on March 17, 2017, ③ on April 3, 2017.

[1] Otherwise, the defendant alleged that he paid KRW 1 million to the plaintiff on May 30, 2017, and there is no counter-fix by the plaintiff.

On April 28, 2017, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

2. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the grounds for termination of the lease agreement in this case are three as follows.

In other words, ① arrears in the rent of more than two occasions, ② subletleting without permission, ③ changes in the use of commercial buildings without permission, seems to be an issue.

One bin.

① At least two late arrears: The Defendant agreed to pay the monthly rent from November 1, 2016 under the lease agreement; and the Defendant commenced to pay the monthly rent from February 25, 2017, when three months have elapsed since February 25, 2017.

However, from October 2016, the Defendant carried out the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the instant commercial building, while paying KRW 3,300,000 for the repair cost of the public toilet of the first floor. As a lessor, even though there is no problem in the public toilet to be managed by the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid the repair cost.