According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) based on the evidence adopted by the court below, concluded each lease agreement between the plaintiff and the selected person (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff et al.") and the Defendants; (b) since June 8, 1997, Defendant 1 did not pay monthly from June 1, 199; and (c) the plaintiff et al. terminated each of the lease agreements of this case on the ground that the plaintiff et al. did not pay monthly rent for more than two years; and (d) determined that each of the lease agreements of this case was lawfully terminated on the date of delivery of the copy of the complaint by the plaintiff et al. on the ground that the termination declaration of each of the lease agreements of this case was based on more than two years of rent, and accepted the plaintiff et al.'

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and the plaintiff et al. had the right to terminate each of the lease agreements of this case against the defendants since the defendants did not pay more than two vehicles, and the plaintiff et al. had the right to terminate each of the lease contracts of this case, and the right to terminate the lease contract of this case cannot be restricted on the ground that the plaintiff et al. had the right to terminate the lease contract of this case. Thus, the judgment below did not err by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the termination of the lease contract of this case or the probative value of the disposal document, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The

2. Judgment on the second ground for appeal

The court below rejected the claim by the court below, on February 9, 1998, as to the calculation of the rental deposit to be returned to the defendant by the plaintiff et al., the non-party 1 received the attachment and collection order against the plaintiff et al.'s claim against the defendants such as the plaintiff et al., and on February 9, 1998, the above order was served to the defendants, and since the above order was served to the defendants, the rent cannot be deducted from the rental deposit after the above order was served to the defendants, based on the adopted evidence, the non-party 1 received the attachment and collection order as alleged in the above claim from the 198tae781 and 782 from the Mancheon Branch Branch Branch of the Gwangju District Court on February 9, 1998.

The security deposit received in the lease of real estate guarantees all the obligations of the lessee due to the lease, such as the rent and the liability for damages arising from the loss, damage, etc. of the object, and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the security deposit without any separate declaration of intention, except in exceptional circumstances, when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da50729, Dec. 7, 1999, etc.). Thus, even if there was a seizure and collection order as to the rent claim under the lease contract the security deposit received, even if there was a seizure and collection order as to the rent claim under the lease contract the object of which has been received, if the object is returned after the termination of the lease contract, the amount equivalent to

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of the seizure and collection order, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)