1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit amounting to approximately KRW 26.44 square meters on the left-hand side from among the detached houses and neighborhood living facilities located in Busan-gu D (hereinafter “instant store”) located in Busan-gu, Busan-do, with a period from June 3, 2013 to June 3, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Around that time, the Plaintiff received the delivery of the instant store from the Defendant, and operated a single lag shop after performing the installation of the interior lag and the interior lag construction.

C. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the lessee agreed to the effect that “the lessor has flooded water leakage, and if there is water leakage, it shall be repaired immediately and at the same time.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the instant store for the purpose of design, production, natural chromosomeing, sale, etc., and that led to water leakage due to the rupture of the main wall of the instant store after the instant lease contract, and accordingly, it was possible to start the business at the beginning of September 2013, 2013, even when three months elapsed from the inside waterproofing, interior interior interior, interior interior, interior interior, interior construction, and installation and commencement of business. The Plaintiff suffered serious damage, such as sucking, water erosion, and smelling inside the store, and damage to water distribution.

Therefore, although the defendant requested several times to repair the store of this case so that it can be properly used for business, the defendant did not perform his duty.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff discontinued its business from June 2014.

The plaintiff is considerably difficult to achieve the purpose of lease at the store of this case due to the defendant's default. Thus, the lease contract of this case is terminated as the complaint of this case, and the plaintiff suffered.