보증금반환
The appeal filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the Defendant-Counterclaim Claim expanded by this court are dismissed, respectively.
1. In the first instance court within the scope of trial, the Plaintiff, as the principal lawsuit, filed a claim with the lessor for the payment of KRW 3,190,00,00 for the drainage hole repair cost, KRW 386,440 for cleaning expenses for septic tanks, and KRW 10,576,440 for consolation money for mental damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the Defendant’s non-determination. The Defendant, as a counterclaim, filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 13,576,440 for damages equivalent to the enforcement fine incurred by using the warehouse, which is an illegal building, as restaurant facilities, as the counterclaim, ① damages equivalent to KRW 2,82,674 for the enforcement fine incurred by the Plaintiff’s intentional business permission return (transfer) and closure report, ② KRW 4,180,00 for damages due to the delay in the Plaintiff’s business permission return (transfer), ③ 9,580,000 for removal expenses for restoration, ④ KRW 10,000,00 for the damages not returned.
Therefore, since only the defendant filed an appeal against the counterclaim, the scope of the trial of this court is limited to the part of the defendant's counterclaim claim (However, the defendant extended the purport of the counterclaim in the appellate court). 2. The reason why this court should explain this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, it is accepted by the main sentence of
3. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim
A. The Defendant, as a result of using a warehouse, which is an illegal building, as the Plaintiff’s restaurant facility, agreed that the Defendant is responsible for the charge for compelling the performance while using the said warehouse, which was planned to be removed by the Plaintiff, as a restaurant facility, among the instant stores, which had been 2.5 square meters of toilets, 12 square meters of a kitchen, and 5 square meters of a warehouse, among which the instant store was located. The Defendant thereafter paid the charge for compelling the performance of the said warehouse amounting to 2,822,674 square meters of a building 19.5 square meters of an illegal building on several occasions. Of them, when calculating the charge for compelling the performance imposed on five square meters of a warehouse, the Defendant