2.B

3.C

4.D

(a) deliver the second floor of 279.340 square meters among the real estate listed in the attached list;

B. It shall pay 26,620,000 won and 2,420,000 won per month from April 17, 2016 to the date of completion of delivery of real estate set forth in paragraph (a) above.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. On January 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs leased the instant real estate to the Defendant on a two-story 279.340 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) among the real estate listed in the attached Table list, with the lease deposit of KRW 30 million, KRW 2420,000 per month (payment on January 16, 2015), and the lease term of KRW 2,000,000 per month from January 16, 2015 to January 15, 2017, and around that time, delivered the instant real estate.

B. The Defendant did not pay the Plaintiffs the rent after May 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant on September 3, 2015 that the said lease should be terminated unless the Plaintiff paid the overdue rent to the Defendant by September 15, 2015.

C. On May 2, 2016, a duplicate of the complaint of this case, stating the Plaintiffs’ intent to terminate the said lease agreement on the grounds of the delinquency in the payment of two or more rents, was served on the Defendant.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the above lease contract was terminated on May 2, 2016 and terminated, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay rent 2,620,000 won (2,420,000 won x 11 months) at the rate of 2,420,000 won per month from May 16, 2015, the following month of the period of May 16, 2016 when the Plaintiffs were to be paid a rent from May 16, 2016 to April 16, 2016, and the rent or unjust enrichment is to be paid from April 17, 2016 to the date of delivery of the instant real estate.

have obligations.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. At the time of the lease agreement, the Defendant paid the Plaintiffs KRW 30 million to pay the lease deposit, and the overdue rent is naturally deducted from the lease deposit. Thus, even if the Defendant failed to pay two or more rents, the Plaintiffs cannot terminate the lease on this ground. However, on the ground that the lease deposit guarantees the obligation arising from the lease relationship, such as overdue rent, etc., the lessee cannot be exempted from liability for refusing to pay the rent or for failing to pay the overdue rent on the ground of the existence of the lease deposit. Thus, the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts that the real estate of this case is used by the F Housing Association, and the F Housing Association transferred the real estate of this case to the plaintiff and removed the model house return damage to the union members. Thus, the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiffs' claim by receiving service fees from the F Housing Association until the payment is made. However, such circumstance does not affect the defendant's duty to deliver the real estate of this case, the obligation to return rent and unjust enrichment. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims shall be accepted with due reason, and it is so decided as per Disposition.