1. The judgment of the first instance, including the claim extended by the Plaintiff in this court, is modified as follows.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases, is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The third and fourth parts of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted.

제1심판결 6쪽 14째 줄 “피고” 부분부터 같은 쪽 18째 줄까지 부분을 아래 『』과 같이 고쳐 쓴다.

Although the Defendant alleged that there was no delay in the rent due to the deposit of the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff as the depositee, according to each of the evidence Nos. 3, 1, 4, 7, 8, 11, 13, 13 (including the number of evidence with a serial number), the Defendant did not deposit the rent that occurred from July 2018 to October 2018, and thus does not affect the validity of the termination on the ground of the rent. Furthermore, the amount deposited by the Defendant does not extend to the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent (from July 2019 to October 2019), and the amount deposited by the Defendant was not more than KRW 600,000,000,000,0000,000,000 won claimed by the Defendant, but only after the first six million,000,000,000 won claimed by the Defendant.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to deem that the repayment became effective upon deposit, inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was deposited under the name of rent rather than the return of unjust enrichment, by asserting that the instant lease agreement remains effective.

나. 제1심판결 6쪽 19째 줄부터 8쪽 1째 줄까지 부분을 아래 『』과 같이 고쳐 쓴다.

B. On September 29, 2020, the Plaintiff expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to offset the Plaintiff’s overdue rent and the Defendant’s claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s claim for return of deposit against the Plaintiff. The fact that the said written statement has been delivered to the Defendant is apparent in the record, so the above two claims are to the extent of equal amount.