1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 12, 2005, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease six-story stores in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City’s E-building (hereinafter “instant building”) with a lease deposit of KRW 60 million, monthly rent of KRW 300,000,000 from October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2007 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Upon termination of the lease at the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff agreed to restore the instant building to its original state and deliver it, and if the Plaintiff fails to perform its duty to restore to its original state, the Plaintiff agreed to deduct the cost of restoration from the deposit.

(Article 10 of the Lease Contract).

On October 1, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the artificial insemination work that installs ventilation facilities, electric installations, fire-fighting systems, automatic door, floor construction and heating facilities, walls, etc. of the instant building (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant facilities”), and operated a sports center for the development of juveniles in the instant building after completing the installation of ventilation facilities, electric installations, fire-fighting systems, automatic door, floor construction and heating facilities, walls, etc. around November 1, 2005.

The Defendant extended the term of lease on September 30, 2007 from October 1, 2007 to September 30, 2009, and extended the term of lease on September 30, 2009 again from September 30, 2009 to September 30, 201.

E. On October 2009, the Plaintiff complained of business difficulties to the Defendant and requested the termination of the instant lease agreement, and on April 30, 2010, the Plaintiff removed from the instant building without restoring the site to its original state, such as the removal of the instant facilities, under the condition that the new lessee was not seeking the termination of the lease agreement.

F. On March 24, 2011, the Defendant newly leased the instant building to C Co., Ltd. and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter collectively referred to as “new lessee”).

G. On January 13, 2012, the Plaintiff deducted the rent in arrears, etc. against the Defendant.