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

A. 1) The Defendants jointly and severally KRW 86,117,989 and KRW 7,154,189.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be determined as follows. The Defendants’ assertion in this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the assertion made by the court of first instance. As such, it shall be accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. On the 5th page of the judgment of the first instance, from the first instance to the 10th conduct, “The payment of monthly rent, termination penalty, etc. was demanded,” and “The claim for damages concerning the money obtained by deducting the deposit of the instant lease contract from the monthly rent, termination penalty, and the expenses to be subsidized for the interior works, etc.,” respectively, and on the 8th page below, “the instant lease agreement pursuant to the instant lease agreement” is deemed to be “the return of unjust profit pursuant to the instant lease agreement or the return of unjust profit,” respectively.

B. From No. 18 of the first instance judgment to No. 12 of the 1999 to No. 11 of the 19999.

Article 13(1) of the instant lease agreement provides for the obligation to restore the instant building to its original state upon the expiration or termination of the term of the instant lease agreement to Defendant B and to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff. Article 13(2) of the instant lease agreement provides that the penalty for breach of contract shall be the number of days for delay in performing the duty of restoration to its original state.

In light of the fact that the penalty stipulated in paragraph (2) above is determined as the rent corresponding to the number of days for delay, which means that the Plaintiff’s failure to occupy and use the instant building constitutes damages caused by delay in the performance of the duty to restore the original state regardless of whether or not the above penalty is delivered, the Plaintiff can seek damages for delay in the performance of the duty to restore the original state along with the penalty, which appears to be unreasonable. In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s performance of the duty to restore the original state as stipulated in Article 13(2) of the instant lease agreement is deemed unreasonable.