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 grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and each evidence submitted by the court of first instance is deemed legitimate even if each evidence submitted to the court of first instance was presented to this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is that the Defendant’s assertion is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion as the evidence additionally submitted in the trial, and the Defendant’s assertion to emphasize or add “2. Additional Determination” is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of “the following. Additional Determination” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the court.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant asserts that the instant store cannot be transferred until the cost of the instant store is paid. The Defendant’s assertion on the reimbursement of beneficial non-performance shall be considered as the claim for reimbursement of beneficial non-performance and shall be examined.

According to the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2-2, the defendant is recognized to have agreed to restore the lease contract of this case to its original state, and it is reasonable to view that the lessee is a special agreement to waive in advance the right to demand reimbursement of all kinds of beneficial expenses incurred on the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da12927, Jun. 30, 1995). Accordingly, the defendant's assertion on the preferential reimbursement of the beneficial expenses

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant cannot deliver the instant store before receiving the premium, since the Defendant interfered with collecting the premium by seeking a new lessee.

The tenant is responsible for supporting the fact that the lessor has interfered with the tenant's opportunity to recover the premium.

In other words, premium collection opportunities for a lessor are not proven to the extent that the lessee is confidented by a judge.