2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

2. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

3. The part dismissing the Plaintiff also claims damages for delay from December 10, 2020, which was the date of this decision, but there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff returned the loan, which is the object of the lease, to the Defendant. Thus, in this case where the Defendant did not simultaneously make a simultaneous performance defense, the Defendant does not order the Defendant to return the lease deposit at least with the repayment of the lease deposit. However, the damages for delay cannot be deemed to have occurred as to the obligation to return the lease deposit.

(E) On the other hand, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the refusal to renew the lease contract.

No evidence exists to deem that a claim for the return of deposit has been filed, but in the case of a housing lease contract which is implicitly renewed, the lessee may notify the lessor of the termination of the contract at any time. Since the notification of the lessee's termination of the contract takes effect three months after the date on which the lessor is notified of the termination of the contract (see Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act), the lease contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at least was terminated on December 1, 2020 after three months from September 2, 2020, which was served on the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff's claim for the return of the principal of the

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for return of deposit for lease shall be accepted, but the claim for damages for delay shall be dismissed, and the proviso of Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply to the