1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, part of the claim for payment of money, including the selective claims added at the trial:

1. In the first instance trial, the Plaintiff sought an amount of money calculated at the rate of KRW 5,00,000 per month from July 1, 2013 to the completion date of the delivery of the instant factory. The first instance court partly accepted the claim for payment, and dismissed the remainder of the claim and the claim for delivery.

As to this, the Plaintiff did not appeal against the above claim for extradition, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed against the claim for payment of the above amount, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the claim for payment of the above amount.

2. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of “five million won” in Section 7 of Chapter 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance (the first day of each month) following the addition of “five million won” in Section 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance.

3. Determination

A. According to the above recognition on the termination of a lease agreement, barring any special circumstance, the instant lease agreement was terminated September 23, 2013 by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on the grounds of two or more years of grace period, barring any special circumstance.

I would like to say.

In regard to this, the defendant planned to install manufacturing facilities, such as pressing, in the factory of this case, and for this purpose, the factory of this case is required to obtain approval for the installation of manufacturing facilities from the competent authority. Since the factory of this case was not registered due to the plaintiff's failure to file a report on the completion of the factory establishment, the defendant could not obtain approval for the installation of manufacturing facilities. The roof and wall of the factory of this case were generated, and the plaintiff did not remove concrete that had been used to remove at the front end of the factory of this case for the defendant's work convenience, but did not remove concrete that had been used to remove at the front end of the factory of this case, electric facilities were not installed, and the defendant could not use and make profits from the factory of this case for the purpose of the lease contract. Accordingly,