1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 11,513,057 and as a result, from April 14, 2018 to January 29, 2019.

. 1,300,00 won was paid and 775,000 won was not paid by the Plaintiff, and 3,067,910 won was paid and 125,700 won was paid.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 6, 8, 9, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's claim and judgment

A. Although the Plaintiff’s claimant Defendants were obligated to maintain the necessary conditions for the use and profit-making of the leased object under Article 623 of the Civil Act, they were unable to achieve the purpose of the lease due to their negligence.

Therefore, the termination of the instant lease agreement by the Plaintiff on the ground of this is lawful.

The defendant's non-performance of obligation makes it impossible for the health care center members to carry out an election campaign, and the plaintiff suffered losses from returning membership fees of 16,260,260 to the health care center members.

In addition, the Plaintiff invested KRW 50,000,000, such as facility costs, on the premise that the Plaintiff will operate the instant building for three years, and incurred losses (i.e., KRW 8,300,000,000 for six months (= KRW 50,000,000/36 * 6).

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff 47,560,260 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case until the day of pronouncement, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. As to whether the Defendants’ breach of duty under the lease agreement could not achieve the purpose of the lease agreement of this case due to the termination of the lease agreement, it is not sufficient to acknowledge only the statement of evidence Nos. 3 and 7, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the evidence as seen earlier and evidence evidence Nos. 1, 3, 7, 14, 15, and 16, the building of this case was newly constructed around 1885 and the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the knowledge of this fact. The Defendants have repaired the building of this case when water leakage occurred, and H thereafter.