임차보증금반환 및 손해배상
1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff),
(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;
(b) 12,393.
A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.
1. Basic facts
A. On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Defendant as KRW 12,00,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000, and the period from March 7, 2018 to March 6, 2020; (b) operated the instant lease agreement with the delivery of the instant store (hereinafter “C”); and (c) thereafter, the Plaintiff received water from the instant store (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”); (b) thereafter, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the fact on February 2, 2019.
On May 2019, the Defendant, with the Plaintiff’s cooperation, requested a water leakage diagnosis and repair business entity to conduct a water leakage diagnosis on the instant store, and the said business entity expressed its opinion to the effect that “The water leakage occurred due to the cracks that occurred on the main floor of the instant store and the water supply hole near the water pipe.”
(c)
On May 9, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of nonperformance of the obligation to repair the water leakage of the instant case. On June 1, 2019, the Plaintiff discontinued business and reported the closure of business on July 16, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 6, Eul evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole of the arguments and arguments No. 5
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to repair the water leakage of the instant case, but the Defendant failed to perform his duty of repair, and the Plaintiff was unable to operate a restaurant normally at the instant store and subsequently suspended the business and discontinued the business.
The instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s nonperformance of the repair obligation.
Therefore, the defendant shall return to the plaintiff 12,000,000 won of the lease deposit due to its reinstatement, and the obligation of repair.