1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended by this court is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of a three-story multi-household detached house in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On April 11, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant building No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as “No. 4”) to the Defendant as KRW 160,000,000 for the term of lease from May 30, 2014 to May 29, 2016.

On May 30, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the term of lease by adding the monthly rent of KRW 200,000 to the monthly rent of KRW 30,00, and the said term of lease was implicitly renewed on May 30, 2018.

C. On June 13, 2019, the Plaintiff discovered that a remote area is milked at the time of leaving the instant building E (hereinafter “E”). On June 19, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the leakage of toilets referred to in subparagraph (D) and took waterproof measures on the toilets referred to in subparagraph (D) on June 22, 2019.

However, as water leakage has continued in D, the Plaintiff diagnosed the cause of water leakage with the facility operator on July 15, 2019, and became aware of the occurrence of water leakage due to the corrosion of the hot water pipe No. D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Evidence Nos. 2, 3 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On July 15, 2019, the Plaintiff asserted that he/she requested consultation with the Defendant with respect to the Korea Water Pipeline Aggregate Collection Corporation (hereinafter “instant construction”) under subparagraph D, and promised the Plaintiff’s wife to manage the construction site and clean up and restore it to the original state after the completion of the construction. However, the Defendant demanded the return of the deposit without any conditions while continuing the construction after the passage of directors.

The plaintiff proposed that the defendant should bear accommodation costs until now if he leaves the facility for the construction of the case, but the defendant did not comply with this.

In addition, on July 20, 2019, the Plaintiff sought consultation on the instant construction work with F Licensed Real Estate Agent F along with the Plaintiff’s licensed real estate agent F, but the Defendant refused consultation with South East Eastdong.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff on July 21, 2019 to the Defendant.