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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, and it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for additional determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion at the appellate court, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. On the third page of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part to be removed or added is that “the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the rent of 11 months from June 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019, the day before the Plaintiff uses the warehouse building of this case, as KRW 27,58,000, and damages for delay.”

The judgment of the plaintiff on the new argument in the appellate court shall be added as follows.

“A. Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant lease agreement was concluded on the ground that the Defendant, an affiliate to a large company, newly constructed and leased a logistics warehouse to the Plaintiff, a citizen of the nearest company, and guaranteed a five-year rental period on the face of week. The Defendant’s unilaterally canceled the contract without any reason is not permissible against the good faith principle.

2) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not agree to include in the terms and conditions the Defendant prepared in advance to conclude the instant lease agreement with a lessor, without any reason for unilaterally terminating the instant lease agreement. 3) The instant lease agreement constitutes a standardized contract that the Defendant prepared in order to conclude the agreement with the Plaintiff. In addition, the Defendant did not perform its duty to explain the instant termination agreement clause, and the said contract is null and void as it loses fairness contrary to the good faith principle.

Therefore, the defendant's notice of termination of this case based on the reservation clause of the above termination right is not effective.

B. The first instance judgment was based on the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant guaranteed the rental period for five years under the instant lease agreement only based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

(2).