1. The defendant is against the plaintiffs:

(a) deliver the buildings listed in the separate sheet;

(b) From April 11, 2017, KRW 10,200 and KRW 10,00.

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, the following facts can be acknowledged. Since the lease agreement between the plaintiffs and the defendant as to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the building of this case”) between the plaintiffs and the defendant on February 28, 2017 is terminated due to the defendant’s delinquency in rent, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, and pay the plaintiff the amount of 10,200,000 won in arrears from October 11, 2016 to April 10, 2017, and the next day from April 111, 2017 to the completion date of delivery of the building of this case, which is the amount equivalent to the rent of 1,700,000 won in proportion to unjust enrichment.

2. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion argues that the defendant should be subtracted from the deposit money, and that the plaintiff refused to issue the cash receipt for the payment of rent by refusing to repair the house and refusing to do so.

However, there is no evidence to prove the above assertion by the defendant, and while the lease relationship continues, the lessor may freely choose whether to cover the overdue rent from the lease deposit. It is not naturally deducted from the lease deposit without any separate declaration of intention, such as deduction prior to the termination of the lease contract, but the lessee cannot refuse to pay the overdue rent on the ground of the existence of the lease deposit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da211309, Nov. 25, 2016). The above argument by the defendant is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.