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 for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts written by the court of first instance. Thus, it is decided to accept this by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Forms 3 through 4, 3, and 6 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be applied to the following parts:

The Defendant asserts that, while operating the “Ccafeteria” in the instant real estate, the Plaintiff was entitled to attract the instant real estate or could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim, since he/she was engaged in urban gas construction by taking up the construction cost of KRW 3 million around December 2012, and around November 2013, he/she paid the beneficial cost by taking out the construction cost of KRW 1 million, and thus, he/she was entitled to attract the instant real estate before receiving the beneficial cost from the Plaintiff.

In light of the above, the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to restore the instant real estate to its original state and order the lessor to return the building upon the termination of the lease relationship is deemed a special agreement to the effect that the lessee would waive in advance all kinds of beneficial or necessary expenses incurred in the building (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3609, Mar. 29, 2012). In the event the lease contract was terminated at the time of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Defendant agreed to restore the building to its original state at the time of lease and return it to the Plaintiff, and the said agreement is deemed a special agreement to give up in advance the right to demand reimbursement of beneficial or necessary expenses.

Therefore, the money paid by the Defendant to the Urban Gas Corporation and the costs of installing the park constitutes a beneficial cost that increases the objective value of the instant real estate.

Even if the defendant waives his right to demand reimbursement, so the defendant cannot seek reimbursement of the expenses paid by each of the above works against the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit without further review.

Claim for the purchase of appurtenances.