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 for the court’s explanation of this case is that of the first instance judgment, except where the plaintiff added the following judgment as to the assertion added by this court, and thus, it is consistent with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that: ① KRW 170,000 of value-added tax on KRW 1,700,000 for rent is not specified for the period from August 2018 to June 2019; however, in full view of the description and overall purport of the statement and argument in subparagraph 8, it appears that the Plaintiff asserts the unpaid value-added tax from August 2018 to June 2019.

It seems that the unpaid management fee was unpaid for not less than 11 months (total 1,840,000 won), ② the monthly rent was overdue (1,700,000 won), ③ the management fee of not less than 300,000 won, and the overall purport of the argument, it seems that the unpaid management fee was not unpaid on August 2018.

B. The Plaintiff’s instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated upon August 27, 2018, on the following grounds: (i) the Plaintiff’s failure to pay the unpaid tax amounting to KRW 3,840,000 (=1,840,000 KRW 1,700,000).

Even if not,

Even if the above value-added tax, rent, and management fee are unpaid or overdue, and the extent of the Defendant’s default is serious, the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated through the service of preparatory documents dated July 15, 2019.

B. At the time of the instant lease agreement by the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not pay the value-added tax on the grounds that the Defendant did not need to issue a tax invoice as a simplified taxable person. However, the value-added tax should not be paid upon a change to a general taxable person thereafter. Since then, the Defendant submitted the business registration certificate verifying that the simplified taxable person is a simplified taxable person. In fact, the Defendant was paid a difference except the value-added tax from August 2018, and the Plaintiff