1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 23, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the Defendant-owned (hereinafter “instant apartment”), setting a deposit of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 350,000, and by October 4, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. On October 24, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a text message to the Defendant that the instant lease contract was terminated on the grounds that a large number of defects occurred in the instant apartment, and that it is impossible to use and benefit from the instant apartment, and around that time, the instant text message was sent to the Defendant. (2) On December 6, 2016, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Gap evidence No. 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. 1) The instant apartment complex was in a state where cleaning was not properly performed at the time of occupancy, and it was in a state of poor condition due to the deterioration of toilets, visits, locking devices of the entrance, locking devices, doorlights, fronts, and remote areas in the apartment complex. The Plaintiff demanded repair of the old part several times, but the Defendant did not repair the old part. Therefore, the Defendant breached the duty of repair owed by the lessor, and the Plaintiff breached the duty of repair to be borne by the lessor. (ii) Since the old part was in a state where it is considerably difficult or impossible to use and benefit from the leased object due to the old part or the old part, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff is “cancellation” under the law of cancellation of the instant lease on the ground of the foregoing nonperformance, as alleged by the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff asserted.

I expressed their intent.

3. Therefore, since the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated and terminated, the defendant shall refund the deposit amount of KRW 40 million to the plaintiff.