1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Around 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the 197.96 square meters of the 197.96 square meters (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) on the part of the Hanyang-dong, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-si C ground of Ilyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-si, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-dong, Seoyang-dong, Preamwon D. D.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The assertion that the Defendant did not properly repair the roof of the instant warehouse on April 2015, caused water leakage from the roof of the instant warehouse around the year 2015, and the market price of the Plaintiff, which was kept in custody in the said warehouse, was 9,521,966 won as the repair cost.

The Defendant, as a lessor, violated the duty to maintain the warehouse of this case, which is the object of lease, in a state necessary for the use and profit-making of the lessee, shall compensate the Plaintiff for the repair cost.

In addition, the Plaintiff was able to sell the main body at KRW 150 million around 2016. However, the Plaintiff failed to sell the said main body from time to time due to the completion of repair of the said main body. As of November 2017, the value of the said main body was reduced to KRW 70 million at the market price. Around 2016, the Defendant is liable to compensate for special damages of KRW 80 million (= KRW 150 million (= KRW 150 million), which is equivalent to the difference between the amount of the said main body and the amount of KRW 150 million that the Plaintiff would have been able to have purchased or sold the said main body.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a lessor, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the repair cost of KRW 89,521,966 (= repair cost of KRW 9,521,966) and damages for delay.

B. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff caused water leakage in the instant warehouse due to the Defendant’s failure to perform his/her duties in around B, 2015, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim premised on this premise is without merit without further review.

3...