공사대금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, together with the purport of the entire pleadings.
On October 30, 2008, the Plaintiff leased the first floor store (hereinafter “instant store”) among the third floor buildings located in the Dong-gu, Busan (hereinafter “instant store”) from the Defendant and operated the restaurant business, and delivered the said store to the Defendant on November 16, 2013 upon the termination of the said lease agreement.
B. The Urban Gas Facility Corporation was established between August 5, 2010 and September 10, 2010 during the term of the said lease agreement. However, the Plaintiff borne 1.4 million won, which is half of the construction cost for the instant store.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion argues that, as the objective value of the store of this case, which is the object of lease due to the above urban gas facility construction that the Plaintiff paid KRW 1.4 million, the Defendant, a lessor, is obligated to reimburse the Plaintiff for the beneficial cost equivalent to KRW 1.4 million.
The lessee bears the burden of proving not only the amount disbursed when claiming reimbursement of the cost for beneficial use, but also the amount of increase in the value (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 62Da437, Oct. 18, 1962). There is no evidence to acknowledge that the increase in the value of the store of this case due to the construction of the relevant urban gas facilities is in existence, and furthermore, according to the evidence No. B’s statement No. 7, in concluding the above lease on Oct. 30, 2008, it can be recognized that “the lessee shall restore the leased object to its original state and deliver it to the lessor.” This is reasonable to deem that the lessee is a special agreement to give up in advance the Plaintiff’s right to demand reimbursement of all kinds of beneficial use costs incurred by the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da12927, Jun. 30, 195). The Plaintiff’s above assertion is not reasonable.
The plaintiff.