2. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff.

(a) 7,500.

2. Judgment with no basis for recognition (Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Part 3 of the dismissal

A. As to the above overdue charge of KRW 7.5 million, the Plaintiff asserts 5% per annum from the day following the service of the complaint of this case to the day of the sentencing of this case, and damages for delay at 12% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

B. First of all, even if a lease deposit has been granted to a lessor, the lessor may freely choose whether to cover the overdue rent from the lease deposit while the lease relationship continues.

Therefore, the overdue rent is not naturally deducted from the lease deposit without any separate declaration of intention, such as deduction, before the termination of the lease contract, and the lessee cannot refuse to pay the rent on the ground of the existence of the lease deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da211309, Nov. 25, 2016). If the payment date is fixed, the obligation to pay the rent is due, the obligation to pay the rent shall be due from the date following the due date, and the liability for delay shall be extinguished only when it is deducted from the deposit, and the obligation to pay the rent shall be due and the liability for delay shall be extinguished, barring any other special circumstances. Therefore, the termination date of the obligation to pay the overdue rent shall be

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39233, Feb. 27, 2014). The part that exceeds the cited part within the scope sought by the Plaintiff in accordance with such legal doctrine is dismissed.