1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff, which orders additional payment, shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

(However, Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Whether the lease contract of this case is terminated on February 1, 200

A. According to the fact that the termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the instant lease agreement was duly terminated on December 10, 2012, by serving the Defendant with a copy of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination of the instant lease agreement on the grounds of delinquency in rent for more than two years.

B. 1) Whether the arrears in rent by the Defendant occurred on the rooftop of the building in this case as a result of water leakage on the Defendant’s assertion, and the Plaintiff did not take necessary measures, such as repair of the building, even though mycoi in the ceiling of the building in this case was unable to use the part of the building in accordance with the purpose of lease. Therefore, the Defendant’s refusal to pay the rent did not constitute nonperformance of obligation, and the termination of the lease in this case on this ground is unlawful. 2) Since the lessor’s duty to allow the use of and benefit from the object in the relevant lease agreement and the lessee’s duty to pay rent is in a mutually responding relation, if the lessee is unable to use the object at all due to the lessor’s failure to perform the repair obligation on the object, the lessee may refuse to pay the rent in whole, but if it is partly possible to use and benefit from the building due to the nonperformance of obligation, the lessee may refuse to pay the rent only to the extent that such failure may hinder it, and thus, the refusal of payment exceeding the limits of payment.