1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Around 2010, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant on the 60 square meters (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) of the Goyang-dong, Yongsan-gu C ground warehouse in Goyang-si (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) and used the said warehouse from around that time to the time the judgment of the first instance was rendered.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Defendant’s failure to repair the roof of the instant warehouse on or around July 2015, caused water leakage on or around the roof of the said warehouse. On or around July 2017, the market price of the Plaintiff, which was kept in the said warehouse, was flooded to KRW 9,521,966 as the repair cost. The Defendant, as a lessor, violated the duty to maintain the instant warehouse, which is the object of lease, in a state necessary for the Plaintiff’s use and profit-making, and thus, should compensate the Plaintiff for the above repair cost. In addition, the Plaintiff could sell the said main body around early 2016 to KRW 150,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was not completed, but at that time, KRW 7,500,000,000,000,000,000,000 won was KRW 7,500,000.

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 89,521,966 (i.e., repair cost of KRW 9,521,966) and damages for delay therefrom, with damages arising from the nonperformance of the Defendant’s duty as a lessor (i.e., special damages of KRW 80,000), and damages for delay. (ii) The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient, and the Plaintiff was flooded due to water leakage in the instant warehouse due to the Defendant’s nonperformance of duty on July 2015 and around July 2017.

It is not enough to recognize that the main equipment has broken down due to flooding, and there is a different evidence to recognize it.