1. An appeal against the principal claim and counterclaim by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and the counterclaim that was selectively added at the trial.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the claim for return of beneficial expenses newly asserted in the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary portion] The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to return to the Defendant the benefit cost of KRW 80 million equivalent to the above amount, as he paid the interior work cost of KRW 63260,000,00,000, and the fixtures cost of KRW 16740,000 in order to operate a folk restaurant with delivery of the leased object in the trial.

First, the evidence presented by the defendant alone used the cost of KRW 80 million as alleged in its assertion, and it is insufficient to recognize that the cost spent as a beneficial expense. There is no other evidence to view otherwise.

In addition, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded that "if the lease contract is terminated, the lessee shall recover the real estate and return it to the lessor (Article 5), and if the steel structure is modified, the lessee shall restore it to its original state (Article 2)." This is interpreted as a waiver of the lessee's right to demand reimbursement of various beneficial expenses (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da12927, Jun. 30, 1995). Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

2. The judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and all appeals against the defendant's principal lawsuit and counterclaims and counterclaims that were selectively added in the trial are dismissed.