From 6,100,000 to 650, the defendant's delivery of real estate in the attached list from December 4, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of real estate in the attached list.

Facts of recognition

On March 27, 2019, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the terms that the lease deposit is KRW 10 million, monthly rent is KRW 650,000 (payment after April 3), and the term of lease is from April 3, 2019 to April 2, 2021 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

The Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, and received the instant real estate from the Plaintiff.

The Defendant paid KRW 5.2 million to the Plaintiff by December 3, 2019 (i.e., KRW 6.5 million x August) out of KRW 1.3 million, and paid KRW 3.9 million for six months, and did not pay the rent at all even thereafter.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the grounds for a claim as a whole for the purport of the entire pleadings, are determined, and the fact that the copy of the complaint of this case, stating the plaintiff's declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract of this case on the grounds of delinquency in rent for more than two years under the lease contract of this case, is clearly recorded in the record, and thus, the lease contract of this case was lawfully terminated due to the plaintiff's declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract of this case.

I would like to say.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and pay the amount calculated by applying the rate of KRW 3.9 million for unpaid rent from December 4, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate at the rate of KRW 6.5 million per month, which is the monthly rent under the instant lease agreement or the amount ratified as the same amount.

The defendant's assertion as to the defendant's assertion is that the defendant cannot deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff before the refund of the lease deposit, which was deducted from the refund deposit of this case.