1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant 12,660,070 won against the plaintiff A and 12,741.

1. The court's explanation concerning this part of the facts of recognition is set forth in the third part of the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

The following shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the following:

“E. The Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs on October 2016.”

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 2015, Plaintiff A’s assertion terminated the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the remainder payment to the Defendant. The Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs, and to pay unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from March 1, 2016, which was both deducted from the unpaid management fees and deposit for lease.

B. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s delivery of the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs around October 2016, and thus, the Plaintiffs’ claim under the premise that the Defendant occupied the instant real estate as of the date of closing argument in the trial room is rejected.

C. Comprehensively taking account of the facts acknowledged prior to the determination on the claim for payment of money, the Defendant did not pay any balance on the payment date of the remainder of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiffs notified the Defendant on September 30, 2015, which was the reasonable period of September 14, 2015, and the instant warden, which was recognized as including the expression of intent of rescission, served on the Defendant on January 20, 2016, deemed that the instant lease was legally rescinded at that time.

As to this, the defendant did not deliver the real estate of this case on the date agreed by the plaintiffs, ordered the director of the management office to cut electricity and cut off the water of this case, did not operate the heating and cooling equipment of this case, the fall risk of windows exists, and it violated the lessor's duty, such as inconvenience in parking.