beta
Text
1. The defendant paid KRW 79,535,194 to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from March 25, 2020 to July 22, 2020.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 16, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant setting the lease term of the building D located in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Building D (hereinafter “instant building”) from March 25, 2018 to March 24, 2020, with the lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,00, and thereafter used the instant building upon delivery to the Defendant around that time.
B. The above lease contract shall restore the above real estate to its original state and return it to the lessor in the event that the lease contract under Article 5 is terminated.
Matters of special agreement
1.The present lease shall be the present facility and the lessee shall enter into the contract on the basis of the documents entered after the on-site visit.
2. A lessee shall restore facilities to their original state when they are altered or damaged by intention or negligence;
3. The management costs shall be 30,000 won (including water supply) per month and shall be paid after the date of occupancy.
"........"
C. On December 2018, the Plaintiff received contact from Defendant Finding on the said fact. The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to repair the boiler on the ground that the boiler was worn out, the boiler management method was not known, and the boiler was insufficient to prevent the boiler from being prevented. However, the Defendant rejected the request.
On January 21, 2019, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to terminate the lease agreement, and the Plaintiff took part of the fact on January 25, 201, but still has the household tools owned by the Plaintiff on the instant building.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements and images (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply) in Gap's 1 through 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment on the parties' arguments
A. Upon termination of the lease agreement, the Plaintiff fulfilled its duty of care in relation to the instant building, as the boiler electric wires were installed and all valves were opened. The instant accident was the boiler.