1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. On February 8, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 10,00,000,000 on the Sejong-si Building D (hereinafter “instant housing”); the lease agreement between February 19, 2017 and February 18, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”); the Plaintiff paid KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant for the lease deposit; the fact that the Plaintiff received the instant housing from the Defendant around that time that there is no dispute between the parties to the instant housing; or that the Plaintiff received the instant housing from the Defendant based on the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff could not live normally due to my mycoung in the instant house because of the lack of living normally, and thus, the Plaintiff agreed to seek the Defendant and the new lessee around May 16, 2017. On or around November 5, 2017, the Plaintiff was completely director of the instant house. However, the instant lease agreement was lawfully terminated due to two or more years of arrears as stipulated in the instant lease agreement, as the Plaintiff was in arrears after May 19, 2017, since the Plaintiff did not pay two or more rents, the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Plaintiff a deposit for rent 10 million,00,000, and damages for delay. Accordingly, the Defendant did not accept the Plaintiff’s right to terminate the instant lease on the ground that the Plaintiff could terminate the lease on the grounds of two or more occasions of arrears, as stated in subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff’s right to terminate the lease agreement cannot be accepted as the Plaintiff’s right to terminate the lease agreement without delay.