1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for adding the following judgments to the defendant’s argument under section 2(4) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is identical to the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

On April 3, 2015, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff had no obligation to pay rent after April 3, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff had sold concrete at the entrance of the instant building on April 3, 2015, on the ground that the Plaintiff had not paid rent. Since the lessor’s duty to use or benefit from the instant building and the lessee’s duty to pay rent is in a mutually corresponding relationship, the lessee may refuse to pay rent within the extent of interference with the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty to allow the lessor to use or benefit from the instant building, and thus, the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty to pay rent for the instant building, and the Plaintiff’s failure to perform his/her duty to pay rent for the instant building. In short, the Plaintiff’s use or benefit from the instant building was partly hindered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da4778, Apr. 25, 197; 2014Da65724, Feb. 26, 2015).