1. The Defendant’s delivery to the Plaintiff, as well as the delivery of the apartment from the attached list, and ② from August 8, 2015.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. On September 2012, the Defendant leased an apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) emitted from the Plaintiff’s attached list from the Plaintiff on the rent of KRW 250,000 per month from October 8, 2012 to October 7, 2014, with the lease deposit up to 5 million, and accordingly, the fact that the instant apartment was occupied and used, so long as it was occupied and used in the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff did not pay the Plaintiff the rent for a long time is not disputed between the parties. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the lease relationship of the instant apartment is deemed to have been lawfully terminated due to the Defendant’s repeated default. Thus, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, delivered the instant apartment to the Plaintiff, and (2) as sought by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount of unjust enrichment or unjust enrichment at the rate of KRW 250,000 per month from August 8, 2015 to the completion date of delivery of the instant apartment.

B. As to this, the Defendant agreed to reduce the monthly rent by 1.50,000 won in the last month. ② In the apartment building of this case, the Defendant spent repair expenses, etc. while living in the apartment building of this case, and ③ it is argued to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot comply with each of the claims of this case due to the lack of circumstances. However, the above ①, ② evidence to acknowledge facts is insufficient, and the remainder of the claims cannot be a justifiable ground to block the Plaintiff from filing each of the claims of this case, and thus, the Defendant’s internal rent cannot be accepted either

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking the fulfillment of each of the above obligations as seen earlier is accepted.