beta
Text
1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claims expanded and reduced in this Court, shall be modified as follows:
(a)..
Reasons
1. This part of the judgment of this court is identical to that of Paragraph 1 among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part of the judgment is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The parties' assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff’s business was suspended due to the collapse of the building during the instant lease agreement, and that the Defendant would be able to repair the instant building and operate the business.
Then, although the plaintiff moved the house in the above building to the outside, the defendant did not repair the building in this case.
Therefore, inasmuch as the instant lease contract was terminated due to the Defendant’s fault, the Defendant should compensate the Plaintiff for damages of KRW 105,389,935,935, including KRW 15,567,60, operating losses, KRW 57,922,35, KRW 1,000, KRW 900, KRW 70,000, KRW 30,000, out of KRW 70,000, KRW 30,000, which is part of KRW 105,389,935.
B. 1) In a lease agreement, a lessor is obligated to maintain the conditions necessary for the use and profit-making of the leased object while the lease is in existence (hereinafter referred to as “leased’s repair obligation”). Therefore, in a case where there is a damage or impairment to the leased object, the lessor is not obligated to repair if it is not likely to interfere with the lessee’s use and profit-making, as it is so minor that the lessee can easily repair without separate expenses. However, if it is not repaired to the extent that it would be difficult for the lessee to use and profit-making according to the contractual purpose, the lessor is obliged to bear the repair obligation, and this is also applicable in a case where not only damages the leased object due to which the lessee is liable, but also damages the leased object without any reason attributable to him/her (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96984, Apr. 29, 2010, etc.).