1. From January 27, 2017 to the 5 million won, the Defendant shall draw up a separate sheet among the ground floors of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from January 27, 2017.

Facts of recognition

On October 27, 2015, the Defendant leased from the Plaintiff the part of paragraph (1)(a) (No. 203) of the order among the real estate indicated in the attached list (No. 29m2) from the Plaintiff.

The lease deposit was set at KRW 5 million, KRW 350,000 per month, and KRW 30,000 per month.

The defendant does not pay rent and management expenses from December 27, 2016.

The Plaintiff, submitted on March 10, 2017, stated in the instant complaint that the lease contract will be terminated on the grounds of the Defendant’s delinquency of rent for more than three years, which was served on March 22, 2017.

During the instant lawsuit, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the monthly rent and management expenses, and accordingly, the rent and management expenses from January 27, 2017 were overdue.

[Grounds for recognition] The lease contract was lawfully terminated according to the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the fact that the ground for the determination of the purport of the entire pleadings was recognized. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to deliver the part of the order No. 1 to the plaintiff and pay the overdue rent and the management fee after January 27, 2017.

The lessee's duty to deliver the leased object and the lessor's duty to return the remainder after deducting the overdue rent, management fee, etc. from the lease deposit is in the simultaneous performance relationship. This purport is to accept the defendant's simultaneous performance defense.

Since January 27, 2017, the defendant is obligated to pay the remainder after deducting five million won of the deposit for lease from the rent and management expenses in arrears. This is also accepted.

Although the defendant asserts that he had expressed a desire from the plaintiff and his father's mother, even if the defendant's assertion is true, the dispute cannot be resolved at once in the lawsuit in this case, and it is possible to remedy the right only when the defendant submitted a separate lawsuit and submitted a certificate of assertion.

The defendant asserts that he was not obliged to pay the costs of replacing boiler to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff in this case.