1. All appeals against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the claim for a counterclaim that has been changed to an exchange at the trial.

1. The scope of this court’s adjudication at the first instance court: (a) the Plaintiff claimed interior and urban gas construction contract amount, penalty, premium, and solatium due to the Defendant’s nonperformance; (b) the Plaintiff accepted only the claim for the return of down payment and the claim for damages equivalent to the amount of the contract for artificial gas construction; and (c) the remainder was dismissed; and (d) the Defendant’s counterclaim was dismissed.

In this regard, since only the defendant changed the counterclaim in exchange for the counterclaim while filing an appeal, only the claim for the return of the down payment and the claim for damages equivalent to the contract deposit in each of the above contract deposit and the claim for the counterclaim changed in the trial court is the object of the judgment of this court

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination on the main claim

A. On July 19, 2012, when the defendant alleged by the plaintiff did not perform his/her obligation under the instant lease agreement, and the defendant cancelled the contract, the defendant is obligated to return the down payment of KRW 5 million to the plaintiff to its original state, and to pay damages for delay on the interior works contract deposit of KRW 10 million, the urban gas construction contract deposit of KRW 1 million, and the payment for delay on each of the said payments. 2) The plaintiff was handed over the instant store from the defendant pursuant to the instant lease agreement, and performed the floor construction on July 19, 2012, when the defendant extended the front glass and floor of the instant store, it is incidental to the defendant's extension of the front glass and floor of the instant store, and show the public parts at the instant store.

According to this, the defendant, as a lessor, did not perform his duty to maintain the necessary conditions for the use and profit-making of the store of this case to the plaintiff as the lessee due to the reasons attributable to him.