The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. On April 29, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff leased all of the 20,3-story freezing factories and facilities (hereinafter “instant freezing factories”) among the buildings on the 3rd floor, Southern-gun C’s ground (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) at KRW 50,000,000 for the rent deposit, KRW 300,000 for the tea monthly rent, and from May 1, 2019 to April 30, 202, and paid KRW 50,000 as the rent deposit to the Defendant.

On May 1, 2019, the Plaintiff registered as a business operator under the trade name “D” and commenced the business in the instant freezing plant.

B. On October 25, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the termination of the instant lease agreement, issued to the Defendant a certificate to the effect that the Defendant terminated the instant lease agreement and demanded the return of the deposit amount of KRW 50 million on the grounds that the Defendant refused to repair the ice ice, which was installed in the instant freezing plant, even after the Defendant’s refusal to repair it.

On November 5, 2019, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that again demands the return of the rent deposit amounting to KRW 50 million.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant violated his duty as a lessor under Article 623 of the Civil Act, which would allow the freezing factory of this case to use and benefit from the freezing factory as follows, and on this ground, the plaintiff terminated the lease contract of this case.

Therefore, the defendant should return to the plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 50 million.

Although the ice, which is the most important facility for the operation of the freezing factory of this case, has failed to repair it, the Plaintiff became unable to operate the freezing factory of this case.

The defendant has illegally occupied and used fishery harbor facilities which are the object of the instant lease agreement, and used some of the freezing factories of this case by illegally expanding them.