1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is as follows: (b) the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional determination' to the Defendant’s new argument in the court of first instance, i.e., “B” No. 14 and 15 of the 5th judgment. G

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s deduction or offset 1) The Defendant deducted the cost of restoration from the cost of restoration to the original state: (a) destroyed the toilet after the Plaintiff leased the instant commercial building; and (b) the Defendant spent KRW 10,00,000 to restore it to the original state; (c) the said cost of restoration to the original state should be deducted from the lease deposit under the instant contract; (d) the Defendant entered into a new lease agreement with G after termination of the contract with C; (e) at the time of a new lease agreement with G, G paid the overdue electricity fee of KRW 19,392,47 and the overdue electricity fee of KRW 5,525,00 in lieu of the overdue electricity fee of KRW 19,

Therefore, 24,917,477 won such as the above overdue electricity fee should be offset from the lease deposit.

B. We examine the determination of the claim on the deduction of the cost for restoration to the original state. From December 15, 2014 when C rented the instant commercial building to April 23, 2015, there is no evidence to acknowledge that C damaged the instant commercial toilet from December 15, 2014 to April 23, 2015, and thereby, C is obliged to restore the said toilet to its original state.

Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Defendant spent KRW 10,00,000 for the repair cost of the instant commercial building, and instead, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 5, 20, and 25, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the limited liability company H and the instant commercial building as KRW 300,000 on April 23, 2015 with C’s consent, and stipulated the terms of the special agreement as “a contract in the present facility condition” under paragraph (1).