1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.

2. The defendant.

1. According to the evidence No. 1-2 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1-2, on December 10, 2010, the Plaintiff leased from the Defendant the household building located in Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant household building”) at KRW 3,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 250,000, and the lease period of KRW 250,000 from December 20, 2010 to December 20, 2012 (hereinafter “lease”).

In addition, the plaintiff is a person who has received a refund of KRW 1,846,00 from the defendant.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,154,000 to the Plaintiff the balance of deposit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As the Defendant, which deducted the unpaid rent from the unpaid rent, has failed to pay the rent for June 2012, the Defendant asserts that the said rent should be deducted from the deposit.

The fact that the plaintiff has not yet paid KRW 250,000 to the defendant for June 2012 is not a dispute between the original defendant and the defendant.

Therefore, the above KRW 250,00 should be deducted from the balance of the deposit to be returned by the defendant.

B. Since the Defendant, after the termination of the lease of this case, occupied and used the building of this case by March 20, 2013, which was after the termination of the lease of this case, by the Plaintiff, until March 20, 2013, the Defendant claimed the deduction of unjust enrichment of KRW 660,000, which is the unjust enrichment for the said period, on the premise that the expiration date of the lease of this case was December 31, 2012, on the premise that the Defendant sought the deduction of unjust enrichment of KRW 660,000, which is the unjust enrichment for the said period.

However, as seen earlier, the expiry date of the lease of this case is December 20, 2012, and the Defendant did not claim the deduction of unjust enrichment from December 21, 2012 to December 31, 2012. Therefore, the Defendant appears to have not claimed the deduction of unjust enrichment during the above period due to mistake.

Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for deduction of unjust enrichment is from December 21, 2012 to March 20, 2013, the day following the expiration date of the lease of this case.