1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. As to this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion, this court’s reasoning is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, thereby citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Determination

A. As to the claim for refund of deposit and the claim for damages, the Defendant’s obligation to allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the instant store was impossible.

We examine whether the trust between the plaintiff and the defendant has been lost to the extent that the contract of this case cannot be maintained any longer because the defendant did not inform the plaintiff of the fact that he was in arrears with C.

In full view of the purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 9, 10, 25, and 1, C filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s representative director D and the Defendant on the ground that the sub-lease contract was terminated on January 17, 2017 by the Defendant on the ground that the sub-lease contract was delayed, and around that time, C received a provisional disposition against D and the Defendant on the prohibition of possession transfer of the instant store, and completed its enforcement on February 21, 2017. The said extradition lawsuit court decided on February 13, 2018 that “C and the Defendant terminate the sub-lease contract with respect to the instant store as of February 1, 2018,” and that “C and the Defendant did not raise an objection against the said decision, but D and C have finalized the said recommendation order between C and the Defendant, and C have consented to the withdrawal of the lawsuit against D and the Defendant on March 13, 2018.

According to the above facts, it is difficult to view that the defendant's obligation to allow the plaintiff to use and benefit from the store of this case is impossible due to C's filing of lawsuit and the enforcement of the provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of possession.

In addition, the failure of the Defendant to notify the Plaintiff of the overdue rent to C constitutes an act of worship which is difficult to continue the sales contract of this case.