A. On October 28, 2014, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant during the period from the period from November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff began to operate a art education institute with the trade name “D” in the instant building from around 290.46 square meters (around 88 square meters), among 40 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”). < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20274, Oct. 28, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 20690, Nov. 1, 2014; Presidential Decree No. 2590, Oct. 31, 2017>

B. On July 29, 2016, and May 13, 2017, when the Plaintiff operated a private teaching institute, water leakage occurred in the ceiling of the instant building, and large amounts of rainwater flow out inside the building. Accordingly, part of the Plaintiff’s art works kept in custody of the instant building was damaged by rainwater.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 6, 12, 13, 15, 17, 18 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 10, 12, 18, 21, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 16, 22, and 22, the result of the on-site inspection by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. In the context of a lease agreement for liability for damages, a lessor is obligated to maintain conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object while the lease is in existence. Therefore, in the event of a damage or impairment to the leased object, the lessor is not obligated to repair if it is so minor that the lessee can easily and easily repair the leased object without any separate costs, and it does not interfere with the lessee’s use and profit-making. However, if it is not repaired, the lessor is not obligated to repair the leased object unless it is repaired, then the lessor is liable to repair it. This is not only when such damage or impairment is attributable to the lessor.