The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a party who alleged the violation of the obligation to resume pleadings has filed an application for resumption of pleadings to submit proof of argument after the closing of argument, the issue of whether to accept the application falls under the court’s discretion in principle

In cases where a court is obligated to resume pleadings and continue hearings, such as where the party who filed an application for resumption of pleadings was unable to have the opportunity to submit arguments due to the circumstances for which it was difficult to impose his/her responsibility prior to the closing of pleadings, and the subject matter of proof of his/her assertion falls under facts requiring proof as much as the outcome of the judgment would depend on the conclusion of the judgment, etc., it is limited to cases where a judgment against the party without providing the party an opportunity to submit arguments after resumption of pleadings is contrary to procedural justice pursued by the Civil Procedure Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da20532, Oct. 28, 2010). Examining the records in light of the foregoing legal principles, it is difficult to view that there was an exceptional circumstance that the court of the original instance has to continue the hearing by resumption of pleadings, on the grounds that it was difficult for the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “the defendant”), to have the opportunity to submit arguments prior to the closing

Therefore, the lower court did not accept the application for resumption of oral argument and did not err by violating the duty to resume oral argument.

2. The remaining grounds of appeal

A. The court below accepted part of the claim for rent of KRW 100 million, the repayment of beneficial expenses and necessary expenses, and the claim for damages due to the delivery of the leased object and simultaneous performance of the leased object among the principal lawsuit, and accepted part of the claim for rent of the counterclaim.

The reasons are as follows.

(1) As alleged by the Defendant, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) violated the lease agreement by changing the structure of the leased object.