1. From March 1, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate stated in the separate sheet, the Defendant from the Plaintiffs’ KRW 50,000 to KRW 50,000.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 17, 2017, the Plaintiffs leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50 million, KRW 3 million per month, and the period from April 1, 2017 to March 31, 2020, and thereafter, paid the lease deposit and handed over the instant real estate.

B. The Defendant did not pay the rent from October 1, 2018, and the Plaintiffs, upon filing the instant lawsuit on December 14, 2018, terminated the said lease on the grounds that the payment of rent was delayed at least twice, and the duplicate of the written complaint reached the Defendant on December 20, 2018.

C. After the filing of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid each of the following amounts to the Plaintiffs as the end-of-month portion on December 21, 2018 ( October, 2018) and the end-of-month portion on April 29, 2019 ( January, 2018, January, 2019), respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 20, 2018 by the Plaintiff’s notice of termination on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of rent, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to receive the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 3 million per month from March 1, 2019 to the date of delivery of the instant real estate from the lease deposit to the date of delivery of the instant real estate, and simultaneously deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, barring special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that the test construction was conducted at the cost of KRW 50 million and the value of the building has increased, so that the expenses, etc. should be refunded from the plaintiffs. However, since the statement of the evidence No. 2 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

4. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.