1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion was the lessee of the first floor of the C building (hereinafter “instant store”) from December 10, 2012 to May 2014, 2014, which was owned by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff installed a training machine (hereinafter referred to as the “training machine”) in the instant store and leased it to the Defendant by connecting it with the water pipe by using the string. The Defendant installed a separate water purifier while using the instant store, and used the water purifier’s string to use both the instant training machine and the water purifier installed by himself/herself by connecting the water pipe with the water pipe by using the string accessories.

However, upon the termination of the lease, the Defendant did not properly remove the water purifier from the instant store, and did not properly treat the waste of the connected heading, and accordingly, the water from the above heading led to the occurrence of water leakage from the floor of the instant store to the outside of the building.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,270,000 per day for the repair cost of 620,000 per day for the repair cost of 620,000 won for the repair period of 620,000 won for the Plaintiff as damages for breach of the duty of care.

2. The fact that the Defendant leased and used the instant store in which a training period is installed from December 10, 2012 to May 2014 is no dispute between the parties.

However, the Defendant installed water purifiers at the instant store only with each of the descriptions or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 9, 10, 11 (including the number of pages).

It is not sufficient to recognize that the accessories have been used, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Furthermore, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant delivered the instant store to D, a new lessee after the termination of the lease, and used the instant store after the said D, and the Plaintiff discovered the leakage of the instant store at around February 2016. In light of this, it is recognized that the Plaintiff discovered the leakage of the instant store.