2. The 4th to 11th of the judgment of the court of first instance (the part concerning the main office) shall be written in such a way as follows:

The Defendant continued to pay the Plaintiff the monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000 under the previous lease agreement until the closing date of the argument in this case, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million has not been refunded.

Therefore, the monthly rent until October 4, 2018 has already been paid by the defendant.

② From October 5, 2018 to the date of the closing of argument in this case, the Defendant is obligated to return to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 260,000 per month (the monthly amount of KRW 760,000 per month, which is the result of appraisal in the first instance court - KRW 500,00 per month paid by the Defendant) as unjust enrichment. The lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million shall be fully appropriated for unjust enrichment until May 10, 2020.

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 260,00 per month from May 11, 2020 to July 10, 2020 (=total of KRW 520,00) and KRW 760,00 per month from July 11, 2020.

3. In addition, the Plaintiff asserts that, even if the act of interference with the collection of deposit is recognized, the act was not done between the “from six months to the end of the lease” as stipulated in Article 10-4(1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act.

In other words, since the lease contract of this case repeatedly terminates on October 4, 2017, the end of the prohibition period prescribed by the law is October 4, 2017 (the plaintiff seems to have understood the "time when the lease period expires" as the "time when the lease period expires" under the provision of the law). The interfere that the defendant is in question was done only on October 12, 2017, after the prohibition period expires.

However, the purpose of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act that intends to guarantee the tenant's deposit collection, or the legal provision itself is the expiration of the lease term.