1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On February 4, 2015, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant by setting the deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.8 million, and the lease period on March 4, 2017.

However, the Defendant delayed the payment of rent from April 2015, and on January 19, 2016, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit seeking the delivery of the instant real estate after cancelling the said lease contract on the grounds of the Defendant’s delayed rent.

On January 27, 2016, the Defendant served the instant complaint on February 16, 2016, sent a document verifying that he/she would deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, but did not respond to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant sent the key of the instant real estate to the nearby brokerage office and notified the Plaintiff thereof.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts found as above, although the Defendant intended to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff on February 16, 2016, the Plaintiff could not have received or could not have received it. Accordingly, on February 22, 2016, the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with the obligation to deliver by leaving the key to the instant real estate to a nearby brokerage office on February 22, 2016. Ultimately, the Plaintiff received it on March 2016 (the preparatory document dated August 12, 2016), and the Defendant’s obligation to deliver was already completed prior to the closing of argument in the instant case.

Therefore, the request for extradition of the instant real estate is groundless.

B. The Plaintiff filed a claim for rent or unjust enrichment against the Defendant, seeking unjust enrichment equivalent to rent or rent from April 5, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

In this regard, the defendant raises a defense that the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the plaintiff is set-off within the scope of equal amount with the remaining debt.

The first priority is to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff in February 2016.