1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff leased part of the first floor and the second floor (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant from the Defendant on April 30, 2014, the lease deposit amounting to KRW 10,000,000, monthly renting KRW 500,000, May 1, 2014 and June 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and paid the deposit money to the Defendant on the same day.

At the time, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that no monthly rent shall be paid until June 30, 2014 for the two-month period for the interior construction of the instant building.

B. On May 1, 2014, the Plaintiff, who was handed over the instant building, commenced artificial architecture construction to conduct cosmetic sales and skin management business under the trade name “D”. At that time, the Plaintiff discovered the breakdown of water supply facilities of the instant building and requested repair thereof to the Defendant.

On May 18, 2014, the Defendant carried out the construction work of water leakage, sewage pipe, and window leakage at the request of the Plaintiff.

C. Around August 2014, the Plaintiff again requested the Defendant to repair the building at the roof and wall of the instant building.

On September 26, 2014, the Defendant performed only a waterworks construction project with a cost of KRW 250,000,000, and there was a construction project entity that presented an estimate of KRW 1,700,000 and KRW 2,500,000 on the water surface of the roof and wall, but no agreement was reached between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the selection of the construction project entity.

After that, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the remuneration in the cost of KRW 20,000,000.

On November 5, 2014 and December 24, 2014, the Defendant sent a certificate of content demanding the Plaintiff to deliver the instant building, because the Plaintiff cannot perform the repair work because the construction cost is excessive. Accordingly, on January 29, 2015, the Plaintiff would deliver the instant building to the Defendant on January 31, 2015.