1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

(a) deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet;

(b) from December 1, 2018 to the annexed list.

1. Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in attached Form; and

2. Judgment by public notice: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. With respect to the above overdue rent, the Plaintiff shall claim damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

First of all, even if a lease deposit has been granted to a lessor, the lessor may freely choose whether to apply for the overdue rent from the lease deposit while the lease relationship continues.

Therefore, the overdue rent is not naturally deducted from the lease deposit without any separate declaration of intention, such as deduction before the termination of the lease contract, and the lessee cannot refuse to pay the rent on the ground of the existence of the lease deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da211309, Nov. 25, 2016). If the payment date is fixed, the obligation to pay the rent is due, the obligation to pay the rent is due from the date following the due date for the payment, and its obligation and its delay liability are extinguished only when the deposit is deducted from the deposit. Therefore, the occurrence of delay damages on the overdue rent is not at the termination price of the lease contract, unless there are other special circumstances.

(see, i.e., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da39233, Feb. 27, 2014). In a lawsuit seeking monetary payment, where the first instance court accepted only a part of the Plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant, barring any special circumstance, shall not be subject to the statutory interest rate under Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, Etc., until the judgment of the first instance is rendered.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da20155 delivered on February 25, 2000, see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da20155.