1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,359,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 22, 2016 to May 29, 2019.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 21, 201, the Plaintiff leased the first floor (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) from C to December 21, 201, among the second floor located on the D’s ground (hereinafter “instant building”) located on the Nam-gu Busan (hereinafter “instant building”) with a deposit of KRW 20,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000, and the period from December 23, 201 to December 21, 2013. From that time, the Plaintiff operated a restaurant with the trade name “E” in the instant commercial building.

B. On December 21, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building from the Defendant, who purchased the instant building, as a deposit for 50,000,000 won, monthly rent of KRW 1,100,000, and the period from December 21, 2013 to December 24, 2013. On December 21, 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building from the Defendant as a deposit amount of KRW 70,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,000,000, and the period from December 21, 2015 to December 21, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

On June 27, 2016, the Defendant sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “this case’s building is a old building with 40 years since it was constructed, and there is a risk of severe water leakages from the present exterior walls and the entire second floor of the building, and due to these circumstances, it is intended to repair the building considerably, so it is impossible to extend the contract upon the expiration of the contract term (hereinafter “certificate of content”).

Accordingly, around December 21, 2016, the Plaintiff recovered the Plaintiff’s goods in the instant commercial building and removed them from the instant commercial building.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entries and videos of Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 (including where there is a serial number, including it; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Although the Defendant did not have any intent to perform large-scale repair works to recognize and prevent the collapse risk of the instant building, the Defendant sent the instant content certification to the Plaintiff on June 27, 2016, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff as if he were to perform large-scale repair works, due to the risk of the collapse of the instant building.