1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Acknowledgement and conclusion of the first instance judgment

A. Based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, and determination of issues) is sufficiently reasonable.

The reasoning of this Court concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination of the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff as set forth in paragraph (2) below. Thus, this Court cited the summary and the attached Form pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

B. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of No. 6-5 of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this court, and the remaining claims shall be dismissed as there is no reason.

The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the plaintiff

A. The gist of the first instance judgment in the grounds of appeal is that the Plaintiff deducts unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the lease deposit to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate from the lease deposit to the lease deposit to be returned by the Plaintiff.

However, the plaintiff cooperates to the maximum extent to seek a new lessee to deliver the above real estate, but the defendant did not comply with it, and the lawsuit in this case was more likely than expected, so it is inevitable to deliver the above real estate to the defendant even after the termination of the above lease contract.

Therefore, there is no possibility that the plaintiff has acquired unfair benefits.

The purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act is to deduct unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from the lease deposit of the plaintiff is against the purpose of the Housing Lease Protection Act to protect the lessee.