1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation concerning this case is that the defendant's assertion is not sufficient as additional evidence submitted in the trial of the court of first instance, and the witness G of the trial of the court of first instance is rejected as well as the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional determination. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination on the counterclaim

A. The Defendant asserted that, after leasing the instant real property from the Plaintiff, the Defendant was liable to pay the Defendant the amount equivalent to the construction cost incurred by the Defendant to the necessary cost and the beneficial cost, and even if not, the Plaintiff is liable to return the unjust enrichment, as it did not do so, because the Defendant was responsible for returning the instant real property to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant was responsible to return the lower debt to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment by altering the lower debt to the 1st column, main room, and boiler, the boiler, and boiler room into the 2nd column and bath room. The lower temperature warehouse was installed, and the lower temperature warehouse was planted on the math, and landscaping was landscapingd by drainage, water supply, fences, and reinforcement of outer walls.

According to each description of the evidence Nos. 5 and 6 (including the number of branch numbers), the defendant leased the real estate of this case from the plaintiff and partially repaired the building on the ground, and the defendant paid KRW 39,94,090 to the repair cost.

However, the part of the cost claimed by the defendant which did not constitute the part of the real estate of this case is an independent part, and the defendant is merely obligated to remove it. Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

In light of the part of the cost claimed by the Defendant, which is the part of the instant real estate and the issue of necessary or beneficial cost, the lessor bears the duty of repair to the extent necessary to attain the objective. However, even if based on the Defendant’s assertion, the instant real estate dies.