1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Facts of recognition

On May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the third floor of 67.84 square meters from among the buildings of reinforced concrete building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building building of 20 million won, monthly rent of 1.3 million won (excluding value-added tax), from May 31, 2013 to May 31, 2014.

around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a deposit of KRW 20,000,000 and monthly rent of KRW 1.3 million.

[Reasons for Recognition] The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff could install the Plaintiff’s signboard only at the location designated by the Defendant as a special agreement when concluding a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, on the grounds that there was no dispute, the entry of Gap’s evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

However, since the location of the Defendant’s designated signboard could not be attached due to safety problems, the Plaintiff was unable to install a fixed signboard, and the Plaintiff was forced to temporarily install a signboard at the entrance of building windows and the first floor and operate the business.

As such, the Plaintiff terminated the above lease agreement because the Defendant did not perform his duty to allow the Plaintiff to use and benefit from the leased object properly. As such, the Defendant is liable to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the Plaintiff and KRW 1.3 million to the Plaintiff, and to compensate the Plaintiff for the real estate brokerage fee of KRW 1 million paid by the Plaintiff.

Judgment

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be recognized that each signboard was installed at the window of the third floor and the entrance of the building leased by the plaintiff. In light of the above facts, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant failed to install a signboard at the desired location of the plaintiff for safety reasons, and that the defendant failed to perform its duty to allow the plaintiff to use and benefit from the leased object of this case.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that the defendant did not perform his obligations as lessor is without merit.

As of the date of closing argument of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant.