1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s reasoning is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal and addition of some content as follows. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 4

① Each of the “instant lease agreement” in Chapter 2, Chapter 8, Chapter 15, and Chapter 4, shall be deemed as the “instant contract.”

(2) On the fourth ground of the judgment of the first instance, “the plaintiff” in the fourth ground of the judgment of the first instance shall be added to “the defendant demands the extension to the fifth floor.”

3. On the fourth page of the judgment of the first instance, “Between the Defendant and the second instance,” and thereafter, “The building of this case shall be extended to the fourth floor.”

(4) On the 5th sentence of the first instance court, the 12 through 17 of the Act on the 16th sentence shall be pronounced "12 through 16, 24".

(5) On the 5th judgment of the first instance, the phrase “(10),” in the 17th judgment, shall be added to “(1) through (3)”.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In accordance with the instant contract and the instant modified contract, the Defendant has a duty to cooperate with the authorization and permission for change of use and extension of the instant building; to provide multi-story architectural firms with documents necessary for the said authorization and permission immediately; to bear the design cost, construction cost, deliberation and change following the extension of at least four stories; to perform construction works; and to guarantee the term of lease from August 1, 2010 to October 31, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

However, following the conclusion of the contract, the Defendant did not cooperate with the Plaintiff at all with the authorization and permission of alteration of use and extension of the instant building upon making an unreasonable request to extend the instant building to five floors. After the Plaintiff’s return of the application for the construction permission, the Defendant did not file an application for the construction permission with the competent authority notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s repeated request. Rather, on June 11, 2013, asserting that the instant contract was rescinded and the instant counterclaim seeking restitution and damages was withdrawn on July 23, 2014.