beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 26,189,956 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 13, 2018 to November 14, 2019 for the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 1, 2016, the Defendant: (a) leased a building listed in the attached list of real estate owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Plaintiff for the purpose of using it as a performance room and office (hereinafter “the instant building”) for rent of KRW 200,000 per month; and (b) from the same date to December 12, 2019 from the same date.
B. On January 19, 2018, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of flood damage, and the underground floor of the instant building was flooded due to water leakage occurring on the second floor of the instant building, and the goods listed in the attached Table owned by the Plaintiff (excluding one out of the two electric files No. 19 microphones and No. 21, No. 19 and No. 21, hereinafter “each of the instant goods”) could not be used.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to maintain necessary conditions during the contract period so that the Plaintiff, a lessee, can use and benefit from the underground floor of the instant building.
However, since the underground floor of the building of this case was flooded due to water leakages occurring in the second floor of the building of this case, and it was impossible to use and benefit from each of the goods of this case owned by the plaintiff, the defendant is obligated to pay damages equivalent to 58,13,670 won and damages for delay equivalent to each of the goods of this case, which the plaintiff suffered from (However, No. 40 No. 13,517,00 won).
3. According to the facts of recognition as above, although the defendant, as a lessor of the building of this case, is obligated to maintain the basement level of the building of this case for its original purpose, the basement level of the building of this case was flooded due to the failure to prevent water leakage of the second floor of the building of this case. Accordingly, the plaintiff could not properly use and benefit from the basement level of the building of this case according to the purpose stipulated in the lease contract of this case.