1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the part between the fourth and the fourth to the fourth, which is the lesser between the fourth and the nineteenth, and is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The plaintiff asserts that the lease contract of this case was omitted due to the following two causes, and that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 20,000,000 due to termination and damages equivalent to KRW 20,00,000,000, which was paid by the plaintiff.

First, the plaintiff asserts that the head of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government imposed a corrective order and a non-performance penalty on the defendant due to the unauthorized extension of the commercial building of this case, and that if the unauthorized extension is removed, it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract because it can not guarantee the area required for the business

However, just because the Defendant received the above administrative disposition, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant’s obligation to use and take profits from the instant store against the Plaintiff was impossible to perform the obligation, and there is no clear evidence to acknowledge the probability of removal of the unauthorized extension during the future lease period.

Furthermore, it is recognized that this case's commercial building is different from the building ledger's area. Thus, at the time of entering into a lease agreement, the plaintiff seems to have been aware of the fact of unauthorized extension.

Next, the Plaintiff asserts that the result of the safety inspection of the instant commercial building implemented around June 2018 was insufficient, and that it is impossible to achieve the purpose of the contract due to the physical defect of the instant commercial building, such as the Plaintiff’s private teaching institute students requesting refund for safety reasons.

However, according to the statement No. 3, this case's commercial building.