1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff shall bear the total costs of the lawsuit after filing the appeal.

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 17, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Defendant on a deposit of KRW 110,000,000 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant the remainder amount of KRW 11,00,000,000, and the remainder amount of KRW 99,000,000 by December 27, 2012.

B. On the instant apartment, the establishment registration of the mortgage was completed over KRW 190,800,000 with the maximum debt amount as the mortgagee, which was the Korea SPS Bank (hereinafter “Japan”); and

As the special terms of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to change the maximum debt amount of the said establishment registration to KRW 176,880,000,000, which is the actual secured debt amount, prior to the payment of the remainder of the Plaintiff’s remainder.

(hereinafter referred to as “matters of special agreement”). (c)

On December 27, 2012, the remaining payment date, the Plaintiff confirmed on December 27, 2012 that the maximum debt amount of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage in the nearest mortgage was not modified according to the terms of the special agreement, and notified the Defendant of the cancellation of the instant lease on the ground of the nonperformance of the obligation stipulated in the special agreement.

On the same day, the defendant had already filed an application for the registration of alteration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in accordance with the above special agreement, and on December 28, 2012, the registration of alteration was completed according to the special agreement.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 to 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the above special agreement was not entered into before the payment of the remainder, and that the Plaintiff expressed his intent to cancel the instant lease agreement on the grounds of this, the instant lease agreement was rescinded as the Defendant’s nonperformance of obligation.

Therefore, the defendant is against the plaintiff.