1. The principal lawsuit among the judgment of the first instance, including the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s claim added and reduced in this court.

1. In the first instance court’s trial scope, the Plaintiff sought as the principal lawsuit the delivery of the building of this case, the return of unpaid rent and unjust enrichment equivalent to the unpaid rent, the damages caused by illegal expansion, and (2) the Defendant sought the return of the lease deposit, the beneficial cost, and the amount of damages equivalent to the premium.

In this regard, the first instance court accepted the plaintiff's claim in its entirety and dismissed the defendant's counterclaim in its entirety.

As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the defendant appealed only on the part of the principal claim.

Therefore, the scope of this Court's trial is limited to the part concerning the plaintiff's claim for main lawsuit.

2. The reasoning of the court's explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the case's corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance as follows, and therefore, it is identical to the part of the judgment of the court of the first instance as to the merits of the lawsuit. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article

Part 1 to Part 6 of Part 6 "A. Determination on the Grounds for Claims" shall be made in the following manner:

A person shall be appointed.

A. According to the facts established prior to the determination on the cause of the principal claim, prior to the determination on the request for extradition of the instant building, the lease of this case is deemed to have been lawfully terminated following the termination notice given by the Plaintiff on November 28, 2016, on the ground of the Plaintiff’s delay of rent.

On the other hand, there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant received the building of this case as a provisional execution on October 11, 2018 by the court of first instance.

However, the effect of enforcement based on the judgment of the sentence of provisional execution is not fixed, but is a condition subsequent to the cancellation or change of the judgment or the sentence of provisional execution. Therefore, in the event that an obligee obtains satisfaction by the completion of enforcement based on the sentence of provisional execution, the appellate court does not consider the performance status of enforcement.