1. Of the part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) corresponding to the following amount ordered to be paid.

1. The reasoning of the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Thus, the court’s explanation of this case includes summary language pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or additional parts] Following the fourth page of the first instance judgment, the following shall be added.

In addition, the Defendants stipulated the special terms of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendants stating that the object of the lease is “a lease in the present condition of a facility,” and the said special terms of the lease agreement prevails over the lessor’s duty to maintain it in a state suitable for the use and profit-making of the object of the lease. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that there is no violation of the said special terms of the said agreement. In light of the same lease agreement, the term “a lease in the present condition of a facility” is recognized as having established the special terms of the lease agreement. However, inasmuch as the nature of the lease agreement lies in the use and profit-making of the object of the lease, the obligation to maintain the object in the state necessary for the use and profit-making of the lease agreement is the most essential and essential obligation borne by the lessor under the lease agreement. Accordingly, the Defendants’ obligation to maintain the object of the lease, which is the lessor, in a state suitable for the use and profit-making of the object of the lease, is not acceptable. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the fact of recognition of the above limitation of liability and the evidence revealed earlier, the instant building was in a very unstable state of electric facilities since it was old to the extent that the removal would have been scheduled. The Plaintiff leased the leased object for about 10 years and operated it as a sales store.