The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below as to the ground of appeal No. 1, the court below rejected the Defendant’s defense prior to the merits on the ground that the agreement of the non-committee agreement contained in the instant lease agreement goes beyond the meaning of consultation or claim as to the terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement and the implementation thereof between a large number of sectional owners and the Defendant, and, as in the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the agreement would be applied to the case where a sectional owner terminates the instant lease agreement and

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the non-committee agreement.

2. According to the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court as to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3, the lower court determined that the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the delivery to the Defendant of the content-certified mail containing the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the foregoing, on the grounds that the Defendant had been in arrears for not less than two consecutive months, and the Defendant did not implement the

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the requirements for

3. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the ground of appeal No. 4, the court below held that the defendant's duty to deliver the plaintiff's store of this case to the defendant is related to the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the lease deposit of 5 billion won to the defendant for the object of the lease contract of this case (the part on the 6th floor above ground among the building of this case). The defendant's simultaneous performance defense is also related to the duty