1. The Defendants (including the Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s appeal and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s conjunctive claim added at the trial.

1. The grounds for appeal by the Defendants cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance except for the part of Defendant B’s preliminary claim for counterclaim (claim for Reimbursement of Benefit and Expenses) that the following additional determination is made, and even if evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance (Evidence No. 13, 14, 46-1 through 5 of evidence No. 46, and partial testimony of witness G of the court of first instance) were presented in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and the judgment of the court of

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for adding the judgment of the court below as to the conjunctive claim by Defendant B, which was added in the trial, as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. Defendant B’s assertion: (a) If the subject matter of the instant lease agreement is not land, but the subject matter of the instant lease agreement does not establish the claim for the purchase of ground property regarding the instant building 1 through 4, the part newly constructed or expanded by the Defendant B among the instant 1 through 4 constitutes a beneficial cost increased by the objective value of the existing building; and (b) the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 185,187,360, which is the existing value of the existing building, and damages for delay.

B. As to the above Defendant B’s aforementioned assertion of beneficial cost, the Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B renounced his right to reimbursement of beneficial cost.

According to the purport of the argument in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 14 and Eul evidence No. 1, Article 5 of the lease contract of this case provides that "if the lease contract of this case is terminated, the lessee shall restore the above real estate to its original state and return it to the plaintiff," and Paragraph 3 of the special agreement provides that "when a facility is installed with the consent of the lessor for the benefit of the facility and the convenience of the user (Lessee), the necessary expenses, beneficial expenses, premium, etc. for the termination of the lease."