The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Claims as to whether duty of restoration exists or not;

(a) If the lessee returns the leased object to the lessor, he is liable to restore it; and

(Article 654 and 615 of the Civil Act). When a lessee repairs or alters the leased object, in principle, he/she shall remove the leased object and make it available at the time of lease.

However, the contents and scope of the duty to restore should be determined individually in consideration of the details and contents of the lease contract, the state of the object at the time of lease, the contents of the lessee accepted or changed.

B. For the following reasons, the lower court deducted the cost of removing interior facilities, etc. from the deposit to be returned by the Defendant.

On February 2010, J Co., Ltd. leased stores on and around February 2010, performed the installation of facilities necessary for coffee store business, and operated a coffee specialty from that time to that time with the trade name of “F.”

The Plaintiff acquired from the previous lessee the business of the F coffee stores, and operated the F coffee specialty store by leasing the store from the Defendant.

In the lease contract, the plaintiff's duty to restore upon termination of the lease is stipulated, but the defendant removed the expenses because the plaintiff did not remove the interior facilities, etc. at the time of termination of the lease.

All or most of the facilities removed by the Defendant are facilities installed by the lessee prior to the Plaintiff to operate a coffee store business.

Comprehensively taking account of these circumstances, even if the facilities removed by the Defendant were installed by the Plaintiff’s former lessee, the Defendant is obligated to remove and restore them to its original state.

Even if the Defendant’s removed facilities coincide with the store, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff does not bear the duty to restore the leased facilities.

In addition, the facility removed by the defendant is installed for the operation of the Franchis coffee store, and is used for other purposes.