1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On April 4, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) leased part of the first floor of the Cheongju-gu Seoul ground building (hereinafter “instant restaurant”) which the Defendant operated as a restaurant, from the Defendant, to the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and from April 15, 2018 to April 14, 2020; (b) around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the lease deposit amounting to KRW 5,00,000,000 and the facility cost of KRW 2,50,000,000.

6. The Defendant received the instant restaurant from the Defendant and operated the business.

[Ground of recognition] Entry of Gap evidence 1, the absence of dispute, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) From April 8, 2018 when the Plaintiff started operating the instant restaurant, from around April 8, 2018, the sewage pipes of the toilets adjacent to the instant restaurant frequently opened, so far as they exceeded garbage, they cannot use the toilets of the instant restaurant on the wind, and due to the smelling of garbage, the instant restaurant was unable to receive customers. As a result, the Plaintiff’s repeated suspension of business, which led to the Plaintiff’s failure to receive a sudden customer, led to the Plaintiff’s failure to run the restaurant business solely on the delivery, and the sales of the restaurant was considerably decreased. As such, the reason why the sewage pipes frequently cut down is due to the structural problem of the sewage pipe. Accordingly, each time, the Plaintiff informed the Defendant of this fact, but the Defendant continued to prevent the Defendant from taking fundamental measures by drilling only by drilling, which was temporarily obstructed, and thus, the Defendant continued to stop the operation of the restaurant.

3. As above, the Plaintiff was unable to operate the instant restaurant because the Defendant did not perform his duty to repair the lessor, and thus the Plaintiff terminated the instant lease agreement.

Therefore, the defendant shall return to the plaintiff KRW 5,000,000 as the lease deposit stated in the attached list No. 1, and each amount of damage listed in the attached list No. 2 through 7.