1. 피고는 원고로부터 별지 목록 기재 부동산 별지 도면 표시 ㉠,㉡,㉢,㉣,㉠의 각 점을 차례로...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 29, 2010, the Defendant leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant store”) to the Plaintiff as KRW 50,00,000,000 for deposit money, KRW 1,60,000 for the tea month (payment on the 20th of October), and the period from October 21, 2010 to October 20, 2012.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

At that time, the Plaintiff occupied and used the restaurant in the trade name of “C” after paying the full lease deposit and receiving delivery of the store of this case.

C. From October 21, 2013 through extension of the contract term or renewal of the contract, the Defendant maintained the lease relationship by raising the rent of KRW 2,310,00 (including value-added tax) from October 21, 2013, and notified the Plaintiff of his refusal to renew the contract on July 20, 2015, which was earlier than October 20, 2015, when the lease period of the total five years expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 3 (including above number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the fact that the instant lease contract was terminated on October 20, 2015, based on the fact that the repayment obligation of the deposit for lease was recognized, the Defendant is obliged to return the deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent should be deducted from the rent. In full view of the written statements and images of the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff used the store of this case without paying the rent or the rent amount from October 21, 2015 to April 13, 2016, and even now, it can be acknowledged that the defendant did not transfer the occupation of the store of this case. Accordingly, the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent should be deducted from the rent deposit that the defendant should return to the plaintiff, and the defendant may refuse to pay the balance of the rent deposit until the store of this case is delivered from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant shall receive the instant store from the plaintiff at the same time.