1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is modified as follows.

Defendant B.

1. The reason why the court uses this part of the facts of recognition is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement is deemed to have been lawfully terminated around that time by the Plaintiff’s declaration of termination on March 16, 2018, which was caused by the failure to pay the deposit and delinquency in rent as to the Defendant B, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is obligated to leave the instant apartment, and Defendant C is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and to pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above rent arising from the date of the completion of delivery and the unpaid rent.

B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) The Defendants asserted that they cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim until the Plaintiff redeems the remainder of the lease deposit after deducting the rental deposit from the Plaintiff at KRW 25 million. 2) Defendant C is not a party to the instant lease agreement, and thus, Defendant C cannot assert the simultaneous performance of the withdrawal and the refund of the deposit. Thus, Defendant C’s defense cannot be accepted.

Next, as to Defendant B’s defense, Defendant B paid the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 25 million, Defendant B paid the lease deposit of KRW 6.2 million in total to the Plaintiff during the term of the instant lease; Defendant B paid only the rent of KRW 6.2 million per month; Defendant B was a vehicle prescribed in the instant lease agreement; and Defendant B occupied and used the instant apartment even after the completion of the instant lease agreement, as seen earlier.

Thus, Defendant B is obligated to return the apartment of this case to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment, since it obtains the benefit of use by occupying and using the apartment of this case and thereby causes the loss equivalent to the same amount to the Plaintiff as the lessor.