1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for partial revision or addition as follows.

On the four pages of the decision of the court of first instance, the "statement and the result of the request for measurement appraisal" shall be amended to the "statement or image, and the result of the request for measurement appraisal to K of the court of first instance."

The following shall be added at the fourth lower end of the judgment of the first instance.

“The security deposit for lease under a lease contract provides a lessee’s all obligations arising from the lease until the lease is delivered to the lessor after the termination of the lease contract, and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the security deposit without any separate declaration of intention, except in extenuating circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da8323, 830, Sept. 28, 2005). However, if the object is not delivered even after the lease contract is terminated, it cannot be naturally deducted from the security deposit for lease without any separate declaration of intention, such as the lessor’s deduction, unless the object is delivered. The lessee cannot refuse to pay the overdue rent, etc. on the ground that the security deposit exists.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da49608, 49615 Decided February 28, 2013). Based on the foregoing legal doctrine, the instant case is health care unit based on the foregoing, and even though the amount of overdue rent or unjust enrichment that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff as of the date of closing argument in the trial at the trial at the trial, the Defendant did not deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff; however, there is no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff declared that the overdue rent, etc. should be deducted from the lease deposit, and there is no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff expressed that the overdue rent, etc. should

) The portion of 5-15 of the judgment of the first instance court of " shall not also be seen as follows."