A. From April 1, 2001, the Plaintiff leased to the Defendant a total of 227.30 square meters of the 1st floor of the building in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “instant store”). Since the lease deposit was set at KRW 230,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 7,000 (a separate payment for value-added tax and management fee of KRW 200,000,000,000, the lease contract for the said store has been implicitly renewed under the same condition.

B. However, the Defendant did not pay monthly rents on several occasions, and the Plaintiff terminated a lease agreement by content-certified mail on April 22, 2015 as of May 25, 2015, and the Defendant received the following day by declaring that the instant store will be restored to its original state and delivered by August 31, 2015.

C. The Defendant did not deliver the instant store even after August 31, 2015. On October 30, 2015, the Plaintiff deposited 64,203,334 won, excluding the monthly rent in arrears until October 30, 2015.

The Defendant delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2016 when filing the instant lawsuit, but did not restore the said store to its original state.

[Ground of recognition] A without any dispute, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 8, fact-finding reply by the chief of the fire department of the subdivision, and purport of whole pleadings

2. Grounds for and determination of the claim

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the claim for damages due to the breach of duty to deliver a building, the lease contract for the instant store was lawfully terminated on or around April 23, 2015, and the Defendant occupied the instant store without permission from November 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, which is the date of delivery completion, by the Plaintiff’s deposit from November 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of damages equivalent to the rent, the amount of which is KRW 63,200,000, and the delay damages.

On August 2015, the Plaintiff proposed the Defendant to receive the remainder of the money, excluding the money to be deducted from the lease deposit of the store of this case, but clearly stated the Defendant’s intention to refuse it.