1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff leased a deposit of KRW 20 million to the Defendant of KRW 103,67.20 square meters of the first floor of the C Building Macheon-si (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) and KRW 1.3 million on the last day of each month.

B. On November 30, 2017, the Defendant expelled from the instant commercial building.

At the time, the defendant did not restore the outside Capital, balcony, interior painting, flooring materials, and the ceiling studs constructed by the former lessee D to its original state.

C. The Defendant unpaid KRW 11,440,00 for eight-month rent and KRW 2,429,08 for management expenses from August 8, 2017 to November 11, 2017.

【Ground of recognition】 Any fact without dispute, Gap No. 5 and 6

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was not restored to the original state on November 30, 2017, with respect to Capital, balcony, interior painting of the building, flooring materials, ceiling studs, etc. at the time of eviction.

It was true that D, a lessee before executing the above interior construction, was a lessee, but D and the Defendant transferred or acquired the interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior and equipment, and the Defendant did not perform it even though it was required to restore it to its original state, so the Defendant did not yet deliver the commercial building of this case to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, as of September 2017, the Plaintiff did not extend the claim to the Defendant regarding KRW 7,150,00 for the unpaid monthly income and KRW 705,69 for the unpaid management expenses (705,69) in excess of KRW 709,69 for the delinquent management expenses (i.e., KRW 2,429,08 - KRW 705,69).

A request for payment of KRW 7,855,699 in total, and a request for payment of money calculated at the rate of KRW 1,300,000 per month from the date of service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case until the defendant completes the above reinstatement.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In full view of the following facts, there is no dispute over the determination of whether the commercial building in this case is restored to the original state, and the defendant shall restore the commercial building in this case from the plaintiff to the original state when ordering the order from the plaintiff.