Whether the facility cost for restaurant management constitutes a beneficial or necessary cost

Expenses incurred in establishing facilities necessary for restaurant management shall not be considered as beneficial or necessary expenses for which the lessor is liable to repay.

Article 626 of the Civil Act

December 17, 1968, 68Da1923 decided Dec. 17, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 8025, Decision No. 8025, Decision No. 626 (3) of the Civil Act)

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant

Daegu District Court (78Gahap632 (principal lawsuit), 78Gahap894 (Counterclaim)

(1) Of the original judgment, the part against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) regarding the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim is revoked, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s counterclaim claim is dismissed.

(2) All remaining appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

(3) Of the costs of lawsuit, the total costs incurred due to the principal lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) respectively.

In the case of paragraph (1) of this Article and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter only referred to as the Defendant), the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff) shall pay the amount of KRW 7,880,000 with the annual rate of five percent from November 17, 1978 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff shall pay to the defendant 12,094,00 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from November 17, 1978 to the full payment rate.

Litigation Costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second instances, and provisional execution declaration

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

On March 29, 1977, the Plaintiff: (a) purchased a lease deposit for the rent of KRW 5,00,000; (b) monthly rent of KRW 400,000; and (c) on March 28, 1978, the period of the rent of KRW 5,000, KRW 400,000; and (d) the Defendant, on November 11, 1978, operated a restaurant with the trade name (trade name omitted); (b) the Defendant returned the deposit to the Defendant on November 1, 1978, among the instant building’s 1st and 2nd hotel for the instant 2nd floor; and (c) the said Plaintiff returned the deposit money to the Defendant on the first floor; and (d) the said building was not disputed between the parties.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant illegally occupied the building from April 19 of the same year to June 11 of the same year even after the expiration of the lease term. Thus, the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff suffered losses equivalent to the total amount of KRW 7,880,000 due to the plaintiff's failure to directly operate the above restaurant for the above period. Thus, in the lease, the tenant's obligation to return the leased object has a relationship of simultaneous performance with the lessor's obligation to return the lease deposit. Thus, since the tenant's possession of the building of this case by November 11, 1978 upon the expiration of the lease term was due to lawful title, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit by the plaintiff is groundless.

2. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

(A) We examine claims for damages due to interference with business activities.

The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's voluntary extension of the above lease period from March 1978 to the defendant was made on the first of the above lease period of one year, but the defendant could not engage in business activities by means of cutting off or cutting off the building from June 1, 1978 to November 16 of the same year. Thus, it is difficult to believe that the plaintiff's testimony part of the non-party 1 of the court below's testimony is consistent with the plaintiff's assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and that the defendant continued to provide the same 4,40,000 won for the plaintiff's remaining 7 days after the second of the above 5th of the above 5th of the above 5th of the above 5th of the above 1978 4th of the above 5th of the above 5th of the above 1977th of the above 4th of the above 5th of the 197th of the above 1st of the above 1st of the above 2nd of the business testimony.

(B) We examine necessary and beneficial costs claims.

The defendant, after renting this building from the plaintiff, opened a 4,620,00 won of the above 4,62,00 won of the building, and opened a 6th floor, floor board, irrigation room, wall additional construction, 5, 600 won of the building, used 396,00 won of the 396,00 won of the building, and used 5,016,000 won of the total of 70,00 won of the building's 4,000 won of the 60,000 won of the building's 60,000 won of the building's 7,000 won of the building's 50,000 won of the above 7,000 won of the building's 50,000 won of the building's 7,000,000 won of the building's 50,000 won of the building's 80,000 won of the building's 4.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since both the principal lawsuit and the counterclaim by the plaintiff and the defendant are unfair, they shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the original judgment is justified with respect to the plaintiff's principal lawsuit, and the conclusion is deemed to be partially different by admitting part of the defendant's counterclaim. Thus, according to the plaintiff's appeal, the part against the plaintiff's counterclaim among the original judgment is revoked by the plaintiff's appeal, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed, and all of the plaintiff's appeal and the defendant's appeal are without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 95, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of the lawsuit.

Judges fixed ticket (Presiding Judge) Mobile Engines