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 reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the cases where the fourth to Eleven are used as follows, and thus, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the other hand, in a lease agreement, the lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for the lessee to use and take profits from the leased object while in existence (Article 623 of the Civil Act). Since the lessor’s duty to allow the lessee to use and take profits from the leased object and the lessee’s duty to pay rent is in a relationship of mutual response, if the lessor is unable to use the leased object at all due to his/her failure to perform his/her duty to allow the lessee to use and take profits from the leased object, the lessee may refuse to pay the rent

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da41069 Decided September 24, 2009; 96Da4778, 44785 Decided April 25, 1997, etc.). According to the above facts of recognition, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff, from July 2013 to July 2013, installed a steel structure and its nets on the entire outer wall of the instant building without prior consent from the lessee, including the Defendant, to the extent that the Defendant’s business, who operated a singing practice room in the instant building, became impossible by entering into a large-scale repair. As such, the Plaintiff, a lessor, violated the duty to pay rent to the Defendant after the said date.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the remaining monthly rent except for the portion on June 2013 is without merit.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.