(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

A. On February 8, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the lease of the land for C, 3949 square meters, and 409.5 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) of the general steel-frame structure, and other pent roof 409.5 square meters (hereinafter “the instant building,” and collectively referred to as “leased object”) on a deposit of 30 million won, monthly rent of KRW 2.4 million, and the period from February 22, 2010 to February 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and delivered the leased object.

B. The above contract was renewed later, and terminated on April 30, 2018, and the Plaintiff was returned from the Defendant around May 30, 2018.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant did not restore the leased object to its original state without damaging about 20 cm in diameter and about 40 cm in depth, 40 cm in diameter on the floor of the building of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 293,436,00, which is the cost of rebuilding the floor after removing the building of this case with compensation for damages. 2) The above recognition of the liability for damages, and each image of Gap evidence Nos. 4 (including paper numbers), appraiser E's appraisal result, the defendant's concrete floor of the building of this case 150 meters in diameter, depth, 300 to 400 meters in diameter (hereinafter "the building of this case"), and the defendant returned the leased object of this case to the plaintiff after the completion of the lease contract of this case, and the structural safety of the concrete of this case can be acknowledged as being deteriorated due to the degradation of the concrete of this case.

According to the facts of recognition, the defendant neglected to return the leased object to the plaintiff by ensuring structural stability affected by the instant astronomical construction, etc.