A. On January 20, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease of an apartment subject to conversion for sale in lots under the former Rental Housing Act (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from the Defendant, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-si, Seoul, the Defendant-owned (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and thereafter is residing in the instant apartment from that time.

B. On March 2019, the Plaintiff informed the management office of the occurrence of water leakage from malodor (hereinafter “instant defect”) in the main room and the ceiling of the ward of the instant apartment. After that, the Plaintiff applied for the receipt of defect in a fixed manner to the Defendant around May 2019, and requested the Defendant to repeat the defect repair even around August 2019 and October 2019, the Defendant expressed that the Defendant did not perform the defect repair until the time of the instant lawsuit, even though he urged the Defendant to resume the defect repair even around August 2019 and October 2019.

Even according to the defendant's assertion, the defendant started an investigation to grasp the cause of water leakage on June 2019, confirmed that the cause of water leakage is in the heating room of the household of the above floor, and completed the remuneration as of November 13, 2019, and thereafter, the plaintiff expressed his intention of additional remuneration.

C. The repair of the defect in this case has not been made up until now, and the plaintiff has been living in a state room with a part of the singke up until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The judgment is based on the following. The defendant, a lessor, bears the duty to repair the apartment of this case, which is the object of lease, so that the plaintiff can use and benefit from the apartment of this case in accordance with the purpose of the contract of this case. According to the above basic facts, the defendant's failure to perform the above repair obligation caused the damage