2. The reasoning for this part of the reasoning by the court is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the repair cost claim and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment on the instant equipment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) is due to the failure of the defendant's use of the equipment of this case due to negligence, and the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the cost of repairing the equipment of this case 20 million won and delay damages.

(2) Since the Defendant continues to possess and use the instant equipment even after the termination of the instant contract, it is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from January 1, 2017, after the date following the termination date of the instant contract, until the delivery of the instant equipment.

B. (1) As to the portion of the claim for repair cost, in the lease contract, the lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making during the existence of the lease contract (hereinafter “leased’s obligation to repair”).

(Article 623 of the Civil Act). Thus, if the object is damaged or damaged, and if it is not repaired, the lessee would be prevented from using and making profits from the object according to the purpose determined by the contract, the lessor shall bear the duty of repair.

Such a lessor’s duty of repair is recognized to the extent necessary to enable the lessee to use and benefit from the leased object according to the purpose of the lease unless there are special circumstances, and thus, causes the lessor’s duty of repair.