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 court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the "decision on the Defendant's argument" in Section 3 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning "the Defendant's argument" is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, the part concerning the defendant's argument regarding this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. After entering into a lease agreement, the Defendant: (a) purchased the main note in an amount of KRW 57 million; and (b) purchased the main note in an amount of KRW 28 million; (c) exercised the right to purchase the attached article; and (d) exercised the right to claim reimbursement of necessary expenses, since the Defendant paid KRW 42.2 million to the repair of the building of this case, such as repairing the floor of the object, drainage pipe, boiler, etc. to use the building of this case as a restaurant and repairing the door and tent of the building.

B. In a case where the lease contract is terminated due to the lessee’s default, the lessee does not have the right to purchase the attached object under Article 646 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu7245, Jan. 23, 1990). As long as the lease contract is terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the Defendant is prohibited from exercising the right to purchase

Therefore, without having to further examine whether the Defendant actually performed the above construction work and whether the result of the above construction work constitutes a accessory, the Defendant’s assertion regarding the right to purchase the accessory is without merit.

C. In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the expenses the Defendant spent on the instant building are the necessary expenses disbursed for the preservation of the leased object.

Even if not, according to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded that "if the lease contract is terminated, the lessee shall restore the building of this case to its original state and return it to the lessor" at the time of conclusion of the lease contract on the building of this case, and the lessee shall return the leased object.