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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

가. 피고의 어머니인 C은 2010. 10. 29. 피고를 대리하여 원고에게 부산 서구 D오피스� E호(이하 ‘이 사건 부동산’이라 한다)를 임대차보증금 500만 원, 차임 월 30만 원, 임대차기간 2010. 11. 1.부터 2011. 10. 31.까지로 정하여 임대하였다

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million and received the instant real estate, and the said lease contract was implicitly renewed even after the said contract term expires.

C. From the end of December 2014, the Plaintiff requested C to repair the boiler, which had been practically in charge of the instant real estate over several occasions, but refused to repair the boiler, and the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to terminate the instant lease agreement with C, stating that C would not accept the boiler around December 8, 2015.

On December 19, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the key to the instant real estate to the management office, and removed the key to the instant real estate from the management office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, F's testimony of a witness at the trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the determination as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the lessor, while the lessor is in existence, violated the duty of the lessee to use and take profits from the leased property. The instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated and terminated around December 8, 2015 by the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the ground of the Defendant’s breach of the duty of repair.

Since the Defendant asserted that the instant lease agreement was not terminated upon the termination of the said agreement, as the boiler of the instant real estate was replaced on December 10, 2015, the Defendant replaced the boiler of the instant real estate on December 10, 2015.