1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the Defendants added or emphasized the assertion that was added by this court, and thus, this is cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Defendant B asserted that since the value of the building of this case increases to KRW 20 million by installing elevator, pipe, even door, etc. in the underground room among the building of this case, Defendant B acquired the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial non-performance corresponding to the above amount. Defendant C claimed that it acquired the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial non-performance corresponding to the above amount since the electricity facilities were installed at the cost of the real estate No. 3rd floor D among the building of this case, and accordingly, the value of the building of this case increases substantially to the above amount, Defendant C claimed that it acquired the right to claim reimbursement of beneficial non-performance corresponding to the above amount.

Based on this, the defendants are unable to respond to the plaintiff's request for delivery of the building before being paid the above 20 million won and 5 million won.

On the other hand, Article 626 (2) of the Civil Act provides for the lessor's duty to repay means the cost invested by the lessee in order to increase the objective value of the leased property (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da15591, 15607, Aug. 27, 1991). According to the images of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the facilities subject to the Defendants' duty to redeem beneficial costs are expected to be demolished in the process of repairing the building since they were considerably old, and the above facilities are likely to have been installed for the Defendants' business, and it is difficult to view the cost of installation as the cost invested to increase the objective value of the building of this case.

In addition, the objective value of the building of this case was increased due to each of the above facilities installed by the Defendants.

The evidence No. 2-1, 2-2 is respectively.