The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Point 1,

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below decided that the plaintiff leased this building to the defendant by no later than March 29, 1977 for one year until March 28, 1978 and caused the defendant to operate the restaurant, but it received an instruction from the Do governor around around December 29, 1977 that the operator should directly operate the restaurant among the incidental facilities to the tourist hotel, and accordingly, notified the plaintiff on April 3, 1978, within a reasonable period of time that the term of lease expires, and notified the defendant that he will extend the term of the lease until April 25 of the same year, but the defendant did not comply with the request, so the defendant should be ordered to suspend the above restaurant business from around May 1 of the same year, and the defendant cannot be viewed as being able to continue to supply the plaintiff's 1 and the plaintiff's 1's order to continue to provide the plaintiff's losses after leaving the building's lease without voluntarily correcting it. Thus, the court below's order to continue to provide the plaintiff's losses.

The issue is groundless.

Point 2 and 3;

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant's repair and installation of facilities can only be recognized as having been done by the defendant as necessary to operate his restaurant, and it does not constitute a lessor or a lessor's duty to pay the above expenses if the defendant collected independent goods from the building and returned the right to telephone subscription to a post office, and the right to telephone subscription is returned to the defendant, and the defendant collected and returned the right to telephone subscription to a post office, and the defendant collected the right to rent and install the street and emergency lights, etc., and purchased the phone, carpets, and booms, etc. at the entrance of the building. However, the court below held that the above facilities repair and installation of facilities are not necessary for the plaintiff to pay the above expenses if the defendant returned the right to telephone subscription to a post office.

Article 626 of the Civil Code provides for the lessor's duty of repayment refers to the cost incurred by the lessee in order to increase the objective value of the leased object. The necessary cost means the cost incurred by the lessee for the preservation of the leased object. Thus, in this case, the cost incurred by the Defendant cannot be deemed as the cost incurred for the preservation of the leased object or the cost invested to increase the lessee's objective value. In addition, according to the result of on-site inspection (Records 355) of the court below, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant of the building name city of this case has already collected all the cost of the leased object and concluded that the Plaintiff was able to repair the leased object with the new cost after the completion of the lease contract (Evidence 1). In addition, according to the records, the Defendant agreed to restore all the facilities installed by the lessee to its original form and order the Plaintiff to clarify the building. Accordingly, the court below's rejection of all the Defendant's claim for beneficial and necessary cost and reimbursement is justified and its decision is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or incomplete reasoning.

All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)