1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The Plaintiff’s main grounds of appeal cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are that the Defendants’ right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs against the Plaintiff cannot be acknowledged. In addition, the facilities installed in the instant building did not increase the objective value of the building, and the Defendants waived their right to claim reimbursement of beneficial costs against the Plaintiff in the course of the instant lease agreement.

However, such assertion by the Plaintiff is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance trial, and in the case of evidence (Evidence No. 15 (Case Search) and Evidence No. 16 (No. 16) regarding the relevant case that the Plaintiff submitted to this court, even if examining the grounds for the judgment, the relevant case merely appears to be a dispute between the name of the building between an urban development project association that acquired the ownership of the building of this case and the Defendants, who are the occupant, and it does not appear to be a key evidence to support the Plaintiff

Accordingly, the court's explanation on the instant case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case against the defendants is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim of this lawsuit is dismissed without merit. The plaintiff's claim of the counterclaim against the defendants should be accepted. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety. It is so decided as per Disposition.