1. The Defendant’s 10,350,000 won and the Plaintiff’s 6% per annum from December 23, 2017 to February 8, 2018.

1. Around June 2015, the Plaintiff leased 306 units of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant commercial building”) to the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 5.7 million, KRW 800,000 per month, and the period from July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. The period was extended by implied renewal even after the termination of the contract.

However, even if the Defendant continued to pay the rent in arrears and deducts the full amount from the lease deposit, it did not pay 3,200,000 won (per month 80,000 won x 4 months) from March 2017 to June 30, 2017, and delivered the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2017.

After that, the Plaintiff removed the facilities installed by the Plaintiff in 7.15 million won.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 29, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the delivery of the commercial building of this case, but the commercial building of this case had already been delivered to the Plaintiff as it was recognized, the claim cannot be accepted.

B. Payment of rent in arrears: The Plaintiff filed a claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from July 1, 2017 to the time of delivering the instant commercial building. However, as to the recognized facts, the Defendant did not use the commercial building after the Defendant delivered the instant commercial building to the Plaintiff on June 30, 2017 (if the commercial building was not restored to its original state), and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for the portion exceeding 3.2 million won cannot be accepted.

(c) Expenses for reinstatement: 7,150,000 won;

D. The Plaintiff claiming management expenses also claims management expenses as of November 201, 2017 KRW 6,156,386. However, the Plaintiff’s entry in the evidence No. 11 is an amount including the amount after the Defendant delivered the instant commercial building, and there is no evidence that the management expenses were overdue at the time when the Defendant transferred the commercial building. Therefore, this assertion cannot be accepted.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant is from December 23, 2017, the following day after serving the Plaintiff a written application for the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim as of December 21, 2017.