1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

purport, purport, and.

1. The plaintiff filed a claim for the payment of money in the first instance court until the principal suit, ① the confirmation of the existence of a lease agreement relationship, the claim for prohibition of interference with business, the claim for notice of public notice, and the notice of public notice. ② The defendant filed a claim for the purchase of accessories in the first instance court, and the defendant filed a claim for the delivery due to the expiration of the lease agreement.

The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim on the grounds that all of the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim are groundless, and rendered a judgment citing the defendant's counterclaim.

Accordingly, the plaintiff did not appeal against the main claim part of the main claim. ② The main claim part of the main claim, ② the claim for the purchase of the ancillary claim, ③ the claim for the delivery due to the expiration of the lease agreement term, and ③ the counterclaim part.

Therefore, the scope of this court's trial is limited to the part concerning the claim for accessory purchase, which is the part concerning the conjunctive claim, and the request for extradition due to the expiration of the lease term, which is the part concerning counterclaim.

2. Basic facts

A. On June 1, 2006, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract with the Defendant and the instant restaurant by setting the lease deposit of KRW 10 million and the lease term from May 19, 2006 to June 30, 201.

At the time of the conclusion of the above lease agreement, the rent is exempted in consideration of the Plaintiff’s initial facility investment cost, and the agreement was made to allow the Defendant or the lessee to claim any right against the ancillary facilities installed by the Plaintiff, and to reinstate the leased facilities upon termination of the lease agreement.

B. On October 17, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant enter into a lease agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “lease agreement”) with respect to the instant restaurant as of October 17, 201, with a lease deposit of KRW 10 million, a rent of KRW 12 million, a contract term of KRW 12 million, and a contract term from October 17, 201 to June 30, 2014.

at the time of conclusion of the agreement.