A. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) under which the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”) was leased to the Defendant for a period of two years from April 12, 2013, deposit of KRW 10 million, monthly rent of KRW 350,000 (in advance on April 12, 2013) (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. The Defendant did not pay the rent from September 12, 2014, but the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed.

C. On May 15, 2017, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail containing an expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, and the said content-certified mail reached the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, since the instant lease contract was lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s delinquency in rent, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, delivers the instant building to the Plaintiff, and deducts KRW 14,400,00, such as boiler repair cost, etc. again paid by the Defendant from September 12, 2014 to March 11, 2018, among the overdue rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the overdue rent from September 12, 2014 to March 11, 2018 (=350,000 won x 42 months) or here, the sum of the rent from September 12, 2014 to March 11, 2018 (=350,000 won x 47 million won) or from which the lease deposit was deducted from the remainder of KRW 10 million.

In addition, from March 12, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case, there is a duty to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent of KRW 350,000 per month.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that the water leakage and water leakage occurred in the instant building, and that the boiler was out of order and notified the Plaintiff that he would not pay the car if he would not repair the boiler. However, the Plaintiff did not repair it, and thus, the Plaintiff could not respond to the Plaintiff’s request.