1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay 900,000 won to the plaintiff.

B. The plaintiff.

1. The first instance court within the scope of this court’s adjudication refers to the Plaintiff’s claim for delivery of a building and only a part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages was accepted, which was appealed by only the Defendant, and thus, the subject of adjudication of this court is limited to the part of claim for payment of money calculated at the rate of KRW 500,000 per month from October 31, 2015 to the date when delivery is completed, which was cited in the claim for delivery of a building and the claim for damages.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination as to the request for delivery of a building

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on July 7, 2015, based on the Plaintiff’s notice of termination, and the Plaintiff was duly deposited on October 30, 2015, with the amount of KRW 3.2 million calculated by deducting the amount of KRW 1.8 million in arrears from the amount of KRW 5 million in the lease deposit. As such, the Defendant was obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, unless there is any legitimate title to possess the instant store.

B. Although the Defendant delivered the instant store around April 20, 2015, the Plaintiff’s defense that the Plaintiff deducted the amount equivalent to the rent from the next day and deposited the deposit for repayment of the lease deposit is not a lawful repayment deposit. Thus, the Defendant asserted that there was a right to possess the instant store lawfully until the aforementioned lease deposit was fully repaid. However, even if examining all the materials, including the evidence in subparagraph 1, submitted by the Defendant, it is insufficient to acknowledge the said defense.

C. However, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as to the images of Gap evidence 19-1 through 4 and evidence Nos. 21-2, the defendant can be found to have delivered the above store to the plaintiff by taking out all the home appliances within the store of this case on December 24, 2015, which was after the judgment of the court of first instance was rendered. Thus, the defendant is currently obligated to deliver the store of this case.