In cases where a warehouse is repaired as a wedding house, whether there is an increase in the cost and value of the warehouse.

Even if a lessee who leased a building which is the original warehouse has invested money in order to manage the wedding hall and has repaired the building to a wedding hall, it was invested in a special device or facility for the lessee's wedding business, so it cannot be said that the value of the building is increased and its ordinary value is existing.

Articles 203 and 626 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da1857 delivered on December 20, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 14No335 delivered on December 20, 196)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (70 Ghana3230)

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The Defendant received gold KRW 550,00 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time connects the Plaintiff with each point of KRW 1,23,45,67,8,000 among the 37th and third floors attached to the Map No. 2, 3,45,00 from among the 1st floor of approximately 45 square meters in the 1,2,3 1,2, and 45 square meters in each of the 1,45 square meters in each of the 1,23,45,6,7,8, and 1 of the 37th and third floors in the 37th and third floors in the 1,2,43,5,67, and 46 square meters in each of the above 2th and upper floors. (b) The Defendant shall also pay the amount of KRW 28,000 in each part from July 1, 197 to the completion of the above order.

The plaintiff's remaining claims and the defendant's appeal are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected only under paragraph (2).

The defendant shall receive gold KRW 50,00 from the plaintiff and, at the same time, order the part of the building as stated in paragraph (2) of this Article, and shall pay 60,000 won per month from July 1, 1970 to the completion date of the above order.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under paragraph (1).

The plaintiff shall revoke the part against the plaintiff in the original judgment.

A judgment identical to the purport of the claim shall be sought, and the defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the testimonys of Nonparty 1 and 2 in the original judgment as to the facts stated in paragraph 2 (a) and (b) of this Article from among the buildings owned by the Defendant, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts in possession of the said part, and in full view of the testimonys of Nonparty 1 and 2 in the original judgment on September 6, 1969, the building of this case is owned by the Plaintiff and owned by the Plaintiff, with the charges of KRW 28,00 per month for the portion (a) and (b) and (c) of the first floor of the building of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of Article 50,00,000 and the deposit money of this case of this case of this case of June 30, 1970 of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case,

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the non-performance of the above building as the expiration date of the lease term. Even if the plaintiff owned the building of this building and the defendant directly leased it from the plaintiff, the above lease term is not expired since the plaintiff living in Japan was agreed to use this building since the plaintiff had been living in Japan at the time of the lease term, and the above lease term is not expired. Even if the plaintiff did not raise an objection against the defendant who continuously uses this building after the expiration date of the lease term, the above lease term was implicitly renewed, but it is not acceptable to acknowledge that the above lease contract was just because the plaintiff did not object to the defendant who continuously uses this building after the expiration of the lease term, but the statement of No. 1 (New letter) did not have any other evidence to accept it, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's new construction or new construction of the building that had no theory on the establishment of the above building for the purpose of repairing the above 10th of May 27, 1970.

Furthermore, as to the scope of damages, the Plaintiff claimed damages at the rate of KRW 60,000 per month from July 1, 1970 to the day following the expiration of the lease term of this building, but there is no ground to acknowledge such damages. As acknowledged earlier, the Plaintiff leased this building at the rate of KRW 28,000 per month until June 30, 1970, barring special circumstances, the amount of damages due to nonperformance of the duty to life-saving shall be calculated on the basis of KRW 28,00 per month.

Therefore, each of the claims by the Plaintiff is justifiable within the scope of seeking damages at the rate of KRW 28,00 per month from July 1, 1970 to the date of completion of the above order. Thus, the original judgment should be accepted and the remainder of claims should be dismissed by unjust means. Since the original judgment is improper for a different purport, it is modified according to the Plaintiff’s appeal. Since the Defendant’s appeal is without merit, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, 89, and 199 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Choi Jin-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-ju