1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal office and the principal office.

1. The reasoning of this court’s acceptance of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance, except for the addition of the following, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

(The defendant's ground of appeal is not significantly different from the argument in the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are justifiable even if the evidence submitted in the first instance court was presented to this court, and the evidence submitted in the first instance court was presented to this court.

A. Determination on the Defendant’s additional assertion as to the claim for reimbursement of beneficial costs 1) The reconstruction construction project that the Defendant’s additional assertion executed with the costs of KRW 58,88,00 in the instant building (hereinafter “the instant reconstruction project”).

The construction was impossible to restore to its original state. Of the instant lease agreement, the part which the Defendant agreed to restore to its original state, if asserted, is premised on nonperformance, and thus null and void. Furthermore, the agreement on waiver of the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs is an agreement concluded with the Plaintiff, who agreed to the instant rebuilding construction, for the purpose of not giving beneficial cost to the Defendant, and thus null and void against social rules. (ii) Even if it is impossible to restore the removed building, etc., such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the evidence submitted alone cannot be deemed as either originally impossible to waive the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs among the instant lease agreement, or contrary to social rules.

This part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

B. 1 Defendant’s additional assertion on the claim for damages against interference with the collection of premium was known to the Plaintiff twice that the Defendant was in the color of a new lessee, and the Plaintiff’s side delegated the designation of a new lessee to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the defendant concluded a premium contract with G on November 19, 2015 and notified it to the plaintiff's side.

In addition, even before that, the defendant requested to meet with the plaintiff side several times.