1. The Defendant’s KRW 22,153,170 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from July 20, 2016 to October 27, 2016.

Facts of recognition

On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiff leased a building on land (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) other than 662-9 and one parcel of land (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”) located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-do to the Defendant on a deposit basis, with the total rent of KRW 30,000,000,000 from December 8, 2015 to December 7, 2016, the lease period of KRW 30,000,000 and the lease period of KRW 1 year.

According to Article 5 (1) of the lease contract prepared at the time, if the defendant intends to alter the structure of the building of this case, extend or rebuild the building of this case, or perform other facility works, he/she shall obtain written consent from the plaintiff.

After the above lease contract, the Defendant performed interior work to use the building of this case for the purpose of apartment sale promotion center.

Pursuant to Article 19(2) of the Building Act, the head of Si/Gun issued a corrective order to reinstate the building of this case to the Plaintiff and the Defendant by March 10, 2016, on the ground that the building of this case was changed without obtaining permission.

As the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not comply with the order, the head of Si/Gun issued a corrective order again to order the restoration to the original state by April 10, 2016.

On February 15, 2016, the Plaintiff received the above corrective order from the head of Si/Gun, and notified the Defendant that he would recover the building of this case. However, the Plaintiff did not comply with the order.

In spite of the above corrective order, the head of Si/Gun imposed a non-performance penalty pursuant to Article 80(1) of the Building Act on the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 22,153,170 on July 19, 2016.

According to the above facts, the defendant could not change the use of the building of this case without the plaintiff's written consent pursuant to Article 5 (1) of the lease contract, although he could not change the use of the building of this case without the plaintiff's consent, and the purpose of use of the building of this case was changed without the plaintiff's consent.