1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 10, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for lease of KRW 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among multi-household houses located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant multi-unit buildings”) newly built by the Defendant, with the term of March 10, 2014, the lease deposit of KRW 160 million (8 million on the day of the contract, intermediate payment of KRW 52 million on March 15, 2014, the remainder payment of KRW 100 million on March 28, 2014, and the term of lease from March 17, 2014 to March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff additionally paid KRW 60 million including down payment of KRW 8 million on the entire deposit, the remainder of the deposit amount of KRW 4.1 million on the instant multi-unit building with the individual loan registration of the instant real estate, and the aggregate amount of the maximum debt amount of KRW 4.1 million on the instant site.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On March 17, 2014, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the sum of the down payment and the intermediate payment out of the deposit, and occupied the instant real estate. However, on June 5, 2014, the Plaintiff returned the said KRW 60 million to the Defendant and removed the instant real estate from the said real estate.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 (the same content as Eul evidence 1) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. According to a special agreement under the instant lease agreement, the Defendant, which caused the instant claim, had the duty to repay the secured debt created on the site of the instant aggregate building to reduce the sum of the maximum debt amount to KRW 290 million,00,000,000,000 to the individual households of the newly constructed aggregate building without performing the secured debt, set the right to collateral by dividing the maximum

Therefore, the plaintiff has lawfully rescinded the lease contract of this case on the ground of the defendant's non-performance of obligation to make a special agreement.