1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to lease the Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”)’s (hereinafter “instant apartment”) to the Defendant for a two-year period, and use the forest attached to the wall as it is and return at the time when the contract expires. The Defendant asserted that the forest was damaged during the lease period, and sought damages equivalent to the market value of the said forest against the Defendant.

However, according to the lease contract (A1), the lessor of the apartment of this case appears to be E, and the plaintiff himself has concluded the above lease contract as an agent of E.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da14489 delivered on May 9, 2019). In addition, the lessee’s obligation to reinstate is ordinarily a case where the structure of facilities inside real estate needs to be altered or removed, and it cannot be deemed that the lessee’s obligation to reinstate is included in the case of consumed goods, such as remote areas

In light of the fact that there is no mentioning mentioning about the instant forest in the above lease contract (A1), and the Plaintiff asserted that at the time of the lease agreement, the Defendant requested the Defendant to use the instant forest as it is and returned at the expiration of the lease term, and the Defendant also accepted it. However, in full view of the fact that there is no objective evidence to support this, it is difficult to deem that the Defendant is liable to restore the instant forest to

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim cannot be seen as a single mother or there is no reason.

2. The decision of the first instance court on the conclusion is justifiable.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed for lack of reason.