1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) was paid KRW 5,083,077 to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when the judgment is used or added as follows.

2. Each of the 6th 12 pages 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance, in which dismissal or addition is made or added, “for the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor” shall be deemed “for the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor.”

From the 7th of the first instance judgment, the 13th to 16th of the 8th of the 8th of the 195th of the 19

(B) Determination as to the assertion regarding restitution requires the duty to restore the leased property when the lessee returns the leased property to the lessor (see Articles 654 and 615 of the Civil Act); and in cases where the lessee repairs or alters the leased property, the duty to restore the leased property at the time of lease should be determined individually and individually by taking into account the details and contents of the lease agreement, the state of the leased property at the time of lease, the details and contents of the lessee’s repair or alteration thereof, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da268142, Aug. 30, 2019). In addition, the duty to transfer the leased property to the lessor upon termination of the lease, as well as to cooperate with the lessor so that the lessor can use the leased property again in line with the purpose of the lease at the time of lease (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da34903, Oct. 9, 2008).