1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,110,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from February 9, 2015 to June 10, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 1500,000, and the period from June 2, 2014 to September 1, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendant set up a book and a chair in the living room and three rooms of the instant apartment and used them for the purpose of teaching over the counter. Accordingly, the Defendant caused a strike or a sponsor to use a book and a chair on the apartment living room and three rooms of the instant apartment, and caused a wide range of times to a wide range.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10 (if there is a tentative number, each number is included)

2. Determination

A. (i) When a lease contract is concluded, the duty to return the leased object that the lessee owes to the lessor is the duty to deliver the leased object. If the delivery of the leased object is the object of the claim, the obligor fulfills his/her duty by delivering the object according to its present condition (Article 462 of the Civil Act). Therefore, the lessee is obliged to deliver the leased object at the time when the lease contract is terminated, but the obligor liable to deliver the leased object with the care of a good manager until transferring it (Article 374 of the Civil Act). Therefore, if the leased object is damaged due to the lessee’s failure to perform his/her duty of care as a good manager, the lessee is liable for damages due to the nonperformance of the lease contract. Furthermore, if the leased object is damaged, the lessee is obliged to exercise his/her duty of care as to the preservation of the leased object.

Supreme Court Decision 91Da22605, 22612 delivered on October 25, 1991