1. This Court includes the filing of a lawsuit and the claims by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, Appointed Party) added to the Court.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the case where the first-class 19 to 12 first-class 7 of the judgment of the court of first instance, including the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, "the plaintiff" in the first-class 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, is dismissed as "the plaintiff" in the second-class 10 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the part used in the first-class 19 to 12 of the judgment of the court of first-class 7 of the court

2. The plaintiff succeeded to the duty of restoration of the previous tenant with respect to the store of this case, but the plaintiff did not perform the duty of restoration. However, according to each description and image of Eul evidence Nos. 21-24 (including each number), the defendant can be found to have paid KRW 4,539,00 with the cost of restoration of the store of this case (= KRW 500,000,000 for electricity reuse cost of KRW 39,000 for the cost of removal of 1,000,000 won). Thus, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay the defendant the amount equivalent to the above cost of restoration, KRW 4,539,000 for the above cost of restoration, KRW 25,000 for the above cost of restoration, KRW 15,917,030 for the above amount to be deducted from the above duty of restoration of the lease deposit of this case, KRW 1,500,000 for the plaintiff's total amount to KRW 300,5001,0000,000 for the above duty of restoration.