All appeals by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) in total.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional portions, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, during the second page 12 of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the building of this case" is raised as "real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter "the building of this case" and "the building of this case")".

2. The addition;

A. (1) With respect to the terms and conditions of increase in rent, the monthly rent presented by the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff is an unreasonable requirement because it increases by 20% from June to June 2015 (from June 2015 to June 2017).

Because of the deterioration of buildings, the decrease of neighboring local population, etc., it is rather necessary to reduce the rent.

(2) As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and the Defendant set the monthly rent at KRW 2.25,00 (Additional No. 3) as the monthly rent around June 2015, which was maintained until the termination of the lease agreement on June 2019.

Therefore, even if the monthly rent presented by the defendant is increased by 20%, it is not an increase of two years, but an increase of four years, not an increase of two years.

It is difficult to say that it is unreasonable to increase 5% per year by raising 5% per annum.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. (1) The Plaintiff asserted that the terms and conditions of restoration on the parking lot original state were as follows: (a) when entering into a lease agreement with the previous lessor, the first floor parking lot was used exclusively; (b) in consideration of this, the Plaintiff determined that the deposit and the tea were the deposit and received premium.

The defendant who succeeded to the status of the lessor was aware of this.

However, it is illegal that the tenant of the commercial building exclusively uses the parking lot which is the common use area, and it is not specified in the contract.

The area of the parking lot shall be approximately 43 square meters and shall be approximately 1/3 of the area of the building of the commercial building of this case.

Therefore, the new lease condition to restore the parking lot to its original condition is extremely difficult to seek a new lessee.

(2) Even based on the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant.