1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for those newly asserted by the Defendants in the court of first instance as follows (it is not different even if the Defendant’s examination of the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 5 and 11, which are evidence additionally submitted in the court of first instance, by adding them to the descriptions and images of evidence No. 5 and No. 11). It is cited as it

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The Defendants asserted 1) at the time of moving into the instant building, the Defendants spent a total of KRW 40,286,000 for the construction of the instant building because the ceiling construction on the 1st, 4,000 underground floor and the 4,5th,000 above the instant building was not carried out, and thus, the electric power line construction of the building was not carried out, and the costs of KRW 9,420,00 for the use and profit-making of the building was spent, and the Defendants spent KRW 3,200,000 in total for the installation of the sprinkler and security devices (the total cost of KRW 52,906,00). 2) while occupying and using the instant building, the Defendants spent KRW 120,000,000 for the aggregate of the construction of the instant building, and there is an increase in the value of the building.

(B) Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund the necessary and beneficial expenses to the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of the instant building and unjust enrichment before the refund of the said expenses. (B) Determination 1) If the lessee spent necessary expenses for the preservation of the leased object, the Plaintiff may claim reimbursement of the expenses (Article 626(1) of the Civil Act), but the description and image of Article 626(1)5, B, 6, and 8 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendants actually spent the expenses for the construction of a tent and KRW 40,286,00, and the cost for the construction of an electric boat, KRW 9,420,00,00, and KRW 3,200,000 for the installation of a sprinkler and security device, and it is insufficient to recognize that the expense was paid in connection with the preservation of the instant building.