The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal

1. The purport of the claim;

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows 2. Except for adding a new judgment on the Defendant’s new argument at this court as set forth in paragraph 3 below, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. During the three-dimensional 4 of the judgment of the first instance court in the same part, “the Defendant added “as of April 29, 2015” to “as of April 29, 2015” and “the ownership” to “the separate ownership”.

During the 5th trial of the first instance judgment, the phrase "Seoul 2015.4. 29" shall be changed to "the same day".

During the 16th 16th 16th am, “each entry in the evidence No. B No. 2” shall be read as “each entry and video of the evidence No. B No. 2 and 17.”

The following shall be added to the 16th sentence following the first instance judgment:

1) If a lease contract is terminated, the lessor is obligated to recover the leased object at the time of lease and return it to the lessor (Article 654 and Article 615 of the Civil Act). However, even if the lessee used the leased object in a normal manner, the loss and wear arising from the leased object is not attributable to the lessee, but is naturally scheduled in light of the nature of the lease, the lessee’s main contents of which are paying rent for a given period and using the leased object. Therefore, the cost of restitution ought to be borne by the lessor unless otherwise stipulated by the parties. Since the lessor may recover the amount equivalent to the depreciation of invested capital due to the ordinary wear and tear, it cannot be said that imposing the cost of restitution to the lessor for ordinary wear and tear is contrary to the principle of fairness.

Therefore, imposing on the lessee the duty of restitution for the ordinary loss incurred from the lease of a building would impose an unexpected special burden on the lessee.