1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The expansion from the trial.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows, and as to the Plaintiff’s assertion added in the trial of the court of first instance, it is identical to the ground for the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the judgment as set forth in the following paragraph 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Part IV of the judgment of the court of first instance stating that "3,081,60 won, such as a reasonable amount of rent, (i.e., 2., 2. 40 million won for delayed payment of KRW 22,41,600 from April 11, 2017 to August 2, 2017; and (ii) 740,00 won per month from August 3, 2017 to the date of cancellation of apartment delivery and the lease registration of this case (= KRW 90,000,000) (i.e., 6, 90,000 won), the Plaintiff is obligated to pay additional unjust enrichment of KRW 3,081,60 from April 11, 2017 to KRW 70,000,000,0000,000 from KRW 170,71,70,000,000,000 from KRW 17,717,2017.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. As to the assertion on restoration expenses, etc., the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 900,000 in total to the Plaintiff, since the Defendant did not notify the number of the locking locking device, and the Plaintiff did not incur a total of KRW 800,000,00, as the wall and door of the apartment of this case was damaged. Therefore, the Defendant was obligated to pay KRW 900,000 to the Plaintiff. However, it is recognized that the images of the evidence Nos. 17, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31 were liable to pay the Defendant the restoration expenses under the instant lease in relation to each of the above costs.