1. From September 3, 2015 to September 3, 2015, the Defendant KRW 300,000 per month from the Plaintiff to the completion date of delivery of the following building.

1. On September 2, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the building specified in the Disposition No. 1 (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant on September 2, 2014 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million, KRW 300,000 per month, KRW 200,000 per month, and KRW 2 years from September 2, 2014 to September 2, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) as the lease agreement.

(2) After paying the lease deposit amount of KRW 5 million on the same day, the Defendant received the instant real estate from the Plaintiff, and operated the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and delayed payment after December 2, 2014. Accordingly, the Plaintiff expressed to the Defendant that the instant lease contract will be terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment for more than two years by serving the copy of the instant complaint on the Defendant by serving the copy of the instant complaint on the Defendant, is not in dispute between the parties, or may be recognized with Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each entry and the whole purport of pleadings).

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated on June 18, 2015, and is clearly recorded that the copy of the complaint of this case stating the plaintiff's declaration of intention of termination was delivered to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. As to the defendant's assertion and judgment, the defendant defense that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's request for extradition until the security deposit is returned from the plaintiff. Thus, the defendant paid 5 million won to the plaintiff as above. Since the lease contract of this case was terminated on or around June 18, 2015, the plaintiff is obligated to return the security deposit to the defendant. The plaintiff's obligation to return the security deposit to the plaintiff is concurrent performance relation with the defendant's duty to deliver the building of this case.

On the other hand, the lease deposit is the rent, unjust enrichment, etc. that occurs in relation to the lease from the termination of the lease to the delivery of the object.