1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. As to the instant case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons for this court’s explanation are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment as to the Plaintiff’s new assertion in the court of first instance as stipulated in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable as it is

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The asserted Plaintiff invested more than KRW 600 million and completed the new building by extending the old building of this case.

The plaintiff shall exercise the right to purchase appurtenances based on Article 646 of the Civil Act with respect to the new building of this case.

B. (1) Article 646(1) of the Civil Act provides, “If the lessee of a building or any other structure has obtained the lessor’s consent for the convenience of its use, and there is any accessory thereto, the lessor may request the purchase of the accessory at the time of termination of the lease.”

At this time, appurtenances subject to the request for purchase refer to objects attached to the building and owned by the lessee.

Therefore, the object not owned by the lessee is not subject to the claim for the purchase of the attached object.

(2) In addition, an agreement that a lessee of a building shall vest in a lessor’s ownership of an extended part of his/her own expenses is valid as it includes the contents of reimbursement of input expenses or waiver of the claim for right, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance. Thus, the agreement that waives the right to purchase an attached object cannot be deemed null and void contrary to mandatory

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da44705, 44712 delivered on August 20, 1996). (3) In addition to the above-mentioned facts and the overall purport of oral arguments, the following facts may be acknowledged.

① From October 1994 to October 2000, the Plaintiff leased the building of this case from Defendant B to operated the middle restaurant of this case.

② The Plaintiff’s funds with the approval of Defendant B around 200.