1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of this case is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment, which is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance, as stated in paragraph (2). Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant exercised the right to purchase the attached article on the following grounds: (a) installing a sprinkler on the instant building in early 2013, while paying KRW 12 million; and (b) the aforementioned so-called so-called so-called “sprinkler” brought about the objective convenience of the instant building.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence that the Defendant obtained the lessor’s consent with respect to the installation of appurtenances in order to exercise the right to purchase accessories under Article 646(1) of the Civil Act, which the Defendant seeks, and there is no evidence that the Defendant is deemed to have obtained the lessor’s consent, and the headinger installed by the Defendant to operate part of the building of this case as reading room. It is difficult to conclude that it would bring about the objective benefit of the building of this case. Even if the Defendant installed singler, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be considered as equivalent to KRW 12 million. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.