The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the court of first instance is rendered on January 15, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who leases and sells building materials with the trade name “D” in Jeju City.

B. On May 14, 2016, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the Plaintiff for building materials (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and leased building materials, such as pipes, water pumps, etc.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the instant lease agreement is as seen earlier, and comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement in the evidence Nos. 2 through 6, the unpaid rent of the Defendant is KRW 8,510,680, and the Defendant is KRW 3,719,00,00 and the lease deposit paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement was 4.6 million. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid rent of KRW 7,629,680 (= KRW 8,510,680 - KRW 3,719,680) and damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 15% as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserted to the effect that all the rents under the instant lease agreement were paid, and all the construction materials were returned, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge

3. As such, the judgment of the court of first instance is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that "from January 15, 2017 to November 15, 2017" in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court of first instance is obvious that it is a clerical error in the text of the judgment.