A. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff leased each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant pen”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant, from May 201 to November 201, 2017, did not pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 17.5 million (=2.5 million monthly rent x 7 months) (i.e., month rent 2.5 million x 7 months), may be recognized either by any dispute between the parties, or by the purport of the entire arguments and arguments stated in the separate sheet and evidence No. 1 and 2.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 17.5 million payable to the Plaintiff as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 9, 2018 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the delivery of the written application for modification of the purpose of the claim and the cause of the claim as of April 30, 2018.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that, at the time of leasing the instant pen, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s agent could use the swimming pool existing on the neighboring land, and that, in fact, the said swimming pool could not be used, it did not pay it.

However, there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, at the time of leasing the instant pension, that the Plaintiff and the Defendant could use the nearby swimming pool without restriction.

Even if such an agreement was reached, and it is acknowledged that the Defendant was unable to use the swimming pool against the terms of the agreement, the lessee can only terminate the contract when the lessee requested the reduction of the rent or fails to achieve the purpose of the lease on the grounds of the foregoing circumstances (Article 627 of the Civil Act), and may not refuse the full payment of the rent.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the ground that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.