1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the principal lawsuit shall be revoked;

The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim is dismissed.

2...

1. The court's explanation of this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (section 2, No. 9, No. 6, No. 4). Thus, the court's explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the principal lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1 of the party’s assertion agreed that the Defendant’s obligation of management, maintenance, and repair at the time of lease while leasing the instant Moel to the Defendant in a business condition where it is possible to operate.

However, the Defendant neglected the above management and maintenance duty and delivery of boilers and pipes, pipes, escape plates, ridges, floors, doors, windows, bathing rooms, etc., thereby damaging them, and the Plaintiff’s negligence from May 20 to May 20, 2017 in order to operate the said Moel as a lodging establishment.

6. up to 20. A total of KRW 31,346,370 in the cost of repair work.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to KRW 10 million for lost profit in the amount of monthly rent that the Plaintiff suffered as a result of failing to conduct the instant cartels during the period of repair work and the aforementioned repair work.

2. The part of the damage to the Maurel claimed by the Plaintiff was established from the time of the lease, and thus, does not damage the Defendant, or even if such damage was caused as alleged by the Plaintiff during the term of lease, it is merely a mother due to ordinary use of the leased object.

Therefore, as long as the damage claimed by the plaintiff is not caused by the defendant's negligence, the defendant does not bear the duty of restoration, and as a result, there is no obligation to compensate the plaintiff for the loss equivalent to the operating profit during the repair work period.

Furthermore, since the permit for the business of the Maurel of this case was rejected by the plaintiff and returned late, it cannot be said that there is a cause attributable to the defendant.

(b).