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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

A. On June 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the lease of Non-123 of the 1st underground floor of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D D Building (hereinafter “instant store”) owned by C and operated a restaurant with the trade name “E” at the instant store from that time.

B. The Defendant and one other purchased the instant store from C on August 14, 2009 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 3, 2009.

C. On September 3, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with the term of KRW 10 million for the instant store, KRW 900,000 per month for rent (including additional tax), and the term of lease until July 9, 2010, and renewed the said lease agreement several times on or around July 8, 2016 (However, the monthly rent was changed each time).

On July 4, 2016, the Plaintiff removed the instant store at the cost of KRW 2.5 million and delivered the instant store to the Defendant, after taking the kitchen and kitchen installed in the instant store.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, 7 through 9, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The facilities, such as kitchen and kitchen, etc., in the instant store that the Plaintiff asserted, had been installed at the time of leasing the instant store from C, and the Plaintiff agreed to return them at the time of termination of the contract.

Since the Defendant comprehensively succeeded to the lessor’s status under the above lease agreement by taking over the ownership of the instant store from C, it is only possible to demand the Plaintiff to return the said facility in accordance with the above agreement.

Nevertheless, the defendant requested the plaintiff to remove the above facilities and removed the facilities that the plaintiff does not have the obligation to remove in consideration of the cost of KRW 2.5 million.

Accordingly, the defendant is equivalent to the removal cost of the plaintiff's labor without any legal ground.