1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiffs the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and the separate sheet from March 8, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 8, 2015, the Plaintiffs owned 1/2 shares, respectively, and the Plaintiffs concluded a lease agreement with the Defendant and the said real estate by setting the deposit amount of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 400,000, and the period of KRW 400,000 as of December 8, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease”).

B. The defendant started to occupy the above real estate by taking over it from the plaintiffs, and is in arrears as from January 2017.

C. The Plaintiffs sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail indicating their intent to terminate the instant lease on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency in rent of more than two years, and the said mail was served to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, and the purport before oral argument

2. According to the allegations and the above-mentioned facts, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated upon the Defendant’s declaration of termination due to the Defendant’s declaration of termination of the contract in arrears.

As such, the defendant delivers the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs, and January 2017 and the same year.

2. The obligation to return the rent of KRW 800,000 and the unjust enrichment of KRW 400,000 per month from March 8, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the said real estate.

In this regard, the defendant defense to the effect that the termination of the lease of this case on the ground of the delinquency in rent can be deducted from the deposit that the overdue rent is unlawful.

In light of the above, the lessee cannot be held liable for nonperformance due to delay in rent, etc. on the ground that all the obligations of the lessee arising from the lease relationship, such as overdue rent, etc., arising from the lease deposit paid to the lessor at the time when the lessee entered into the lease agreement is guaranteed. (See Supreme Court Decision 94Da4417, Sept. 9, 1994), and the Defendant cannot be held liable for nonperformance due to delay in rent.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted.