A. On February 24, 2018, the Defendant leased the lease deposit amounting to KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff, without rent, the building Daejeon Seosung-gu C and the D headroom (hereinafter “instant leased object”).

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

The special terms and conditions of the instant lease agreement stipulate that “2. Management fees are KRW 13,00, 15,000, studio 15,000, and joint electricity charges are KRW 1,000. 3. The lessee of the leased object will restore to its original state. 4. Special agreement: (a) the lessee of the leased object will restore to its original state: (b) the change of the occupancy date, the contract period from March 17, 2018 to March 16, 2020.”

C. On March 17, 2018, the Plaintiff paid a deposit of KRW 45 million to the Defendant and moved into the leased object of this case.

On June 28, 2019, the Plaintiff, while residing in the leased object of this case, sent to the Defendant, on June 28, 2019, a document verifying the content that “the Plaintiff was unable to perform the contract by taking account of the lessee’s attitude to avoid liability and to use the boiler after being aware of the lessee, and to the effect that the lessor was unable to repair and use the boiler.” The Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a document verifying the content that “the Plaintiff, on June 30, 2019, sent a document verifying that the Plaintiff was unable to perform the contract, taking into account the lessee’s intention to avoid liability, and to cover the name of the lessee. The Plaintiff was unable to perform the contract, i.e., having broken out the boiler which was not broken out, and was able to gather the personality, and thus, was unable to perform the contract.” The said content-certified mail sent to the Defendant on June 30, 201

E. Since August 30, 2019, the Plaintiff removed from the leased object of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The boiler installed on the leased object of this case’s assertion was unable to live normally due to the malfunction or failure of the boiler, etc. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant, who was the lessor of the boiler to repair the boiler.