1. The defendant's delivery from the plaintiff of Busan Shipping Daegu C 201 and simultaneously to the plaintiff 5 million won.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit amounting to KRW 55 million with respect to the Busan Shipping Daegu C 201 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and from November 22, 2013 to November 21, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid KRW 55 million to the Defendant.

B. From November 22, 2013, the Plaintiff occupied and used the said real estate by acquiring it from the Defendant, and the instant lease contract has been implicitly renewed.

C. On February 20, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a message to the effect that the instant lease agreement was terminated on the grounds that the said real estate was unable to be used due to the occurrence of the phenomenon of alliance and mycoi in the instant real estate, and around that time, the said declaration of intent reached the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In a lease agreement, the lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for use and profit-making during the duration of the lease agreement. Therefore, in the event that the leased object causes damage or impairment to the extent that the lessee is unable to use and profit-making according to the purpose determined by the contract, the lessor is not obligated to repair if it is so small that the lessee can easily use and profit-making the leased object without any separate expense, and it does not interfere with the lessee’s use and profit-making. However, if the leased object is not repaired, the lessor bears the duty of repair.

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da34692, 94Da34708 delivered on December 9, 1994) B.

As to this case, the above-mentioned evidence and evidence No. 2-1 to No. 4 are shown.