1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 5,00,000,000 per month (payment on February 25, 201), and the lease term of KRW 400,000 per month (payment on February 25, 2016) from February 25, 2016 to February 24, 2018 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. From March 25, 2016 to June 25, 2016, the Defendant did not fully pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement.

C. On June 28, 2016, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff paid the said overdue charge within two weeks from the date of arrival of the certificate of content on the grounds that the said three-year overdue charge was overdue, and the said certificate of content reached the Defendant on June 29, 2016.

Even after that, the Defendant did not fully pay the Plaintiff the rent under the instant lease agreement between June 25, 2016 and October 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts on the basis prior to the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant was in arrears of at least two years from March 25, 2016, and it is apparent in the record that the duplicate of the instant complaint containing the Plaintiff’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement was served on July 28, 2016. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the instant lease agreement was terminated on July 28, 2016 pursuant to Article 640 of the Civil Act.

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant lease contract was not terminated since the Defendant’s delayed rent falls short of the amount of the lease guarantee. However, the lessee cannot refuse to pay the rent or be exempted from liability for default due to the delayed payment on the ground of the existence of the lease deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da4417, Sept. 9, 194). The Defendant’s argument is without merit.

B. The defendant is obligated to restore the original state and pay the money to the plaintiff.