1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the answer 1,797 square meters in Kimhae-si;

B. From November 26, 2013, the above real estate.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On January 25, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate rent of KRW 20,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, and the lease period of KRW 200,00 to the Defendant on a two-year basis. The said lease agreement included an agreement that the facilities installed by the lessee as necessary shall be restored to its original state at the end of the contract. (2) The Defendant did not pay the monthly rent once when occupying and using the instant real estate from the date of the said contract.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2-1 to No. 5, and purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant did not pay monthly rent at least twice, and on this ground, the fact that the Plaintiff’s complaint on June 11, 2014, which included the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the instant real estate lease agreement, was served on the Defendant on June 30, 2014 is evident.

Therefore, inasmuch as the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated on the ground of the Defendant’s delinquency in payment of rent, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff and return the amount equivalent to the rent or rent calculated by the rate of KRW 2,00,000 per month from January 25, 2013 to the delivery date of the said real estate.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s failure to pay the monthly rent for the instant real estate from January 25, 2013 is clear that, if the Defendant deducts the unpaid rent from KRW 20,000,00,00, which was paid by the Defendant, the obligation to refund the foregoing rental deposit was extinguished after the lapse of November 25, 2013, which was ten months from the date of the said lease.

B. Nevertheless, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not have a duty to deliver the instant real estate before receiving the said money, since the Plaintiff agreed to return KRW 10,000,000 among the security deposit around September 2013 and KRW 8,000,000 among the security deposit around October 2013.