1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

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

B. From June 15, 2019, the above real estate.

1. On November 9, 2018, the Plaintiff leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant officetel”) to the Defendant as of KRW 1 million, KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 per month, and the period from November 15, 2018 to February 14, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in the above facts of determination, the Plaintiff, upon the Defendant’s delay, deducted the difference from the deposit due to the instant lawsuit, and sought the amount of rent or rent from June 15, 2019. Even if the instant lease contract was explicitly renewed, it shall be deemed that the instant complaint was delivered to the Defendant on February 12, 2020, which contained the Defendant’s expression of intent to terminate the Plaintiff’s lease contract on the ground of two or more lease delays.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant officetel to the Plaintiff, and pay the amount of rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent from June 15, 2019 to the date of the completion of delivery of the instant officetel from June 15, 2019 to the date of the delivery of the instant officetel, which was sought after deducting the Plaintiff’s own refund from the lease deposit.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not request the payment of rent to the defendant at all, but the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable since the defendant's above assertion does not constitute a ground to block the plaintiff's claim. (In addition, since the defendant does not dispute about the fact that the defendant is residing in the officetel of this case, it is deducted from the lease deposit and the defendant does not have the lease deposit to be refunded, the defendant can no longer oppose the plaintiff's claim.)