Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

A. On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff, who owned by the Defendant, operated the Deputy Director, with the trade name, “F, by leasing the instant building from January 14, 2015 to January 9, 2018, the deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and the term of lease of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and from January 10, 2015 to January 9, 2018.”

B. On December 29, 2017, around the time when the above lease contract was terminated, the Plaintiff and the Defendant renewed the lease contract by setting the deposit of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 4 million, the lease term from January 10, 2018 to January 9, 202.

C. On August 23, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred to G the entire facilities, the equipment for the string, the equipment for the string, the equipment for the string, the equipment for the string, and the equipment related to the string to KRW 125 million premium. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on a lease agreement around September 10, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 14 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the claim for refund equivalent to the construction cost

A. As to the assertion of the return agreement, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to prepare for the operation of the Sejong Deputy Director in the instant building, but the Defendant agreed to return the construction cost after the termination of the lease agreement, on the ground that there was no construction cost. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7.5 million with the construction cost of the embankment and retaining wall, KRW 5 million with the construction cost of the entrance wall, KRW 5.2 million with the packing cost of the entrance wall, KRW 5.2 million with the parking wall packing cost, KRW 13.7 million with the large construction cost of the retaining wall, and KRW 13.7 million with the retaining wall stone. Thus, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to return

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to return the construction cost as above to the Plaintiff, and the above assertion cannot be accepted.

B. As to the assertion of beneficial costs, the Plaintiff, at the Plaintiff’s expense, carried out the construction of retaining walls and retaining walls.