2. B

[Judgment of the court below]

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 11,846,560 won with 5% interest per annum from August 31, 2015 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment).

2. Purport of appeal;

The part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs 9,09,996 won with 5% interest per annum from August 31, 2015 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case and 15% interest per annum from the following day to the day of complete payment.

A. On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant on the five-story 328.5 meters of the above building (However, the area on the registration certificate is 341.52 square meters; hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) as follows, as co-owners of the 1/2 shares of the building in the building in the building in the building in the building in the Goyang-dong-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

The terms and conditions of the instant lease contract [the contents of the contract] - Lease deposit of KRW 30,00,000/ Monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000: The defendant shall restore the above real estate to its original state and return it to the plaintiffs if the lease contract is terminated for 24 months from the date of delivery. In such cases, the plaintiffs shall return the deposit to the defendant, and overdue rent or damages shall be refunded to the defendant.

If compensation has been paid, they shall be removed and the balance shall be refunded (special agreement) - Contract rent for the present facility - Value-added tax for the monthly rent shall be set aside separately - Public charges and joint management expenses for the building and the present facility shall be liable to the defendant for the defect repair necessary for the business activities of the present facility, and shall be consulted with the plaintiffs, if necessary.- The monthly rent of KRW 2,700,000 from January 1, 2015 to June 30.

B. The Defendant paid KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiffs as lease deposit.

C. On August 30, 2015, the Defendant delivered the instant building to the Plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The plaintiffs

If the overdue rent, etc. is deducted from the lease deposit, 3,553,436 won (=30,000,000 won)

- Default 21,450,00 won [including value-added tax) for six months reduced in accordance with a special agreement from January 1, 2015 to June 30, 2015 + 6,60,000 won for two months from July 1, 2015 to August 30, 2015 (including value-added tax] - Public charges for one month paid by the Defendant 4,517,104 - Electricity 479,460 won for overdue electricity - From July 1, 2015 to August 30, 2015].

However, the Defendant did not perform its duty to restore the building of this case, including the part constructed by the former lessee under the instant lease agreement. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs voluntarily restored the building as shown in the attached photo, and paid KRW 15,400,000 (including value-added tax) with the construction cost. This is to reduce approximately KRW 18,590,000 (including the attached sheet) from the estimate (including the attached sheet) submitted to the Plaintiffs by the company that performed the construction work.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiffs 11,846,560 won (=15,400,000 won - 3,553,436 won) and damages for delay.

B. Defendant

The defendant is sufficient to restore to the original state at the time of the instant lease agreement, and is not responsible for the construction works performed by the former lessee. Thus, the plaintiff's request cannot be complied with on a different premise.

3. Determination

(a) Details and scope of the duty of restitution;

1) Relevant legal principles

When a lessee returns a leased object to a lessor (see Articles 654 and 615 of the Civil Act). In principle, the details and scope of the duty to restore should be determined specifically and individually by taking into account the details and content of the lease contract, the state of the object at the time of lease, the repair or alteration thereof, and the details of the lessee’s repair or alteration thereof, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da268142, Aug. 30, 2019). Unless otherwise agreed, the lessee is obliged to restore the leased object to the former lessee even if he/she returned the leased object (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu12035, Oct. 30, 1990).

2) In the instant case, between E and August 30, 2014, the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the term of KRW 30,000,000 for lease deposit, monthly rent of KRW 3,000,000 for the instant building, and the term of lease from September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2016. The instant building has been used as a health source for a long time, and E and the Defendant have no dispute over the fact that it was used as a health source or that it was used as a health source is recognized by the overall purport of the statement in subparagraph 7 and the pleading.

However, in the instant lease agreement, only an abstract provision that the lessee is obligated to restore to the lessee by specifying that the term “a contract in the present state of facilities” is stipulated in the instant lease agreement, and there is no other reason, it is difficult to view that the existing lessee is liable to restore the building to the changed condition. Therefore, it is sufficient for the Defendant to return the building in the present situation at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement.

B. Whether the construction works implemented by the Plaintiffs constituted restoration of the original state

1) Details and expenditure of construction works executed by the Plaintiffs

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 8 and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the plaintiffs offered a contract to F Co., Ltd. on September 2015 and executed the construction of the building of this case, as shown in the attached sheet (Evidence No. 8) with respect to the construction of the building of this case, the construction of the floor, the removal of the sloping room and shower room, the removal of the outside singing removal, etc., and the plaintiffs paid KRW 15,40,000 (including value added tax) to the construction cost of the above company on September 25, 2015. The expenditure of the construction cost is clearly calculated by reducing approximately 17.2% from the amount of the said estimate.

2) The portion corresponding to the restitution work

Of the above construction works, the defendant recognizes that he performed dexexexexexexs construction after entering into the instant lease contract. Therefore, this part is the defendant's obligation to restore it, and the amount related thereto is KRW 4,098,600 (=4,500,000 x 1.1 x 0.828).

3) However, other parts of the construction not falling under the restoration of the original state, i.e., the floor construction (the defendant is merely the repair construction due to the phenomenon and mycoiation), the removal construction of the sloping room and showresh, and the removal construction, etc. are not enough grounds to recognize that the former lessee is either the construction performed or the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs is the construction falling under the scope of the restoration of the defendant.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit (it is difficult to view that the defendant implicitly recognized the existence of the duty to restore the original state, even if the defendant did not expressly dispute upon obtaining a certificate of content demanding the payment of the construction cost from the plaintiffs around February 2016).

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the defendant bears the duty to pay damages for delay calculated at each rate of 545,164 won (=4,098,600 won) and 12% per annum under the Civil Act from August 31, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the building of this case, to January 16, 2020, which is the date when the defendant rendered a decision of the first instance court to the day when the defendant fully pays for the existence and scope of the obligation.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted within the above scope of recognition and the remaining parts shall be dismissed as without merit. Although the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair, the judgment of the court of first instance cannot be modified to be disadvantageous to the plaintiffs in accordance with the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in this case that only the plaintiffs appealed. Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal shall be dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Laos

Judges Yoon Sung-sung

A person shall be appointed.