1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The first instance court dismissed the Plaintiff’s principal claim and dismissed the claim for reimbursement of indemnity among the Defendant’s counterclaim, and accepted the claim for delivery of the store of this case.

Since only the plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is the part of the plaintiff's main lawsuit and the defendant's counterclaim.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as follows: (a) stated that “No. 12, 2016” was written on January 2, 2017 in the evidence No. 20th of the second instance judgment “No. 12, 2016,” but the Defendant stated that he/she actually entered into a contract on January 2, 2016 due to a clerical error in the name of a clerical error in the name of the Plaintiff on October 5, 2018; and (b) without dispute, the Plaintiff is deemed to have entered into a lease contract on January 2, 2016; and (c) therefore, the relevant part is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the ground that “the grounds for the judgment of the first instance is based on 1.”

3. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's refusal to renew the contract of this case has no validity for the following reasons, and therefore, the plaintiff and the defendant are continuing to renew the contract of this case.

1) Although the Plaintiff was unable to conduct business for more than 30 days at the instant store, this is due to the unforeseen circumstances, such as the reduction of the number of children with intellectual disabilities, there is a justifiable reason that the Plaintiff was unable to conduct such business as above. 2) The Plaintiff did not receive a corrective order from the Defendant for more than three times in relation to the opening and closing time of the instant store.

B. Under the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff’s act as above is “where business is suspended for at least 30 days without justifiable grounds” under Articles 2(3) and 13(2)2 and 6 of the instant lease agreement.