A. On July 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 8,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 700,000 (80,000, July 2, 2014, from July 2, 2014 to July 2, 2015, with respect to the lease deposit of KRW 158,7.47 square meters and subparagraph 6,7.52 square meters within subparagraph 2 of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building No. 1 (hereinafter “instant store”). < Amended by Act No. 11953, Jul. 2, 2013>

B. Although the Defendant tried to operate a drinking house at the instant store, the Defendant demanded repair to the Plaintiff as a result of the occurrence of water leakage following the conclusion of the lease contract.

C. From September 20, 2013, the Plaintiff closed the instant store.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including each number in the case where there are serial numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) The Defendant did not pay only once after entering into a contract. As such, the Plaintiff’s lease contract is terminated by serving a duplicate of the complaint of this case pursuant to Article 4 of the lease contract and Article 640 of the Civil Act.

(2) The Plaintiff heard that the Defendant could enjoy water from the Defendant, and immediately requested repair to Nonparty D, and all roof repair works were completed around September 6, 2013 at the end of the funeral period.

(3) The Plaintiff exempted the Defendant from paying two-month rent in consideration of the Defendant’s failure to run the waterway business during that period.

(4) The Defendant demanded that the fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung, and the Plaintiff.

9. 12.경 원고의 사위인 E와 확인해 보니 건물 전체가 아닌 내실 안쪽의 한쪽 벽만 누수로 인해 눅눅해 져 있었고, 위 부분은 피고가 이사오기 전부터 발생한 것이므로, 건물 전체에 대한 도배비용으로 100만 원을 요구하는 피고의 요구에 응할 수 없었으며, 그 과정에서 원고가 피고에게 도배 비용 60만 원을 분담하겠다고 약속한...