1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,810,00 and annual interest thereon from February 18, 2017 to August 9, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, each of the five floors of multi-family house C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, with KRW 600,000, monthly rent of KRW 201, 202, 203, and 207.

B. On February 2016, the lease was terminated by February 2, 2016, on the ground that the rent was in arrears while the above heading room was leased and used. The amount equivalent to the overdue rent or unjust enrichment by April 2016 is KRW 13,410,000.

C. Around May 2016, the Plaintiff delivered one heading room to the Defendant, one heading room around June of the same year, and two heading rooms on January 11, 2017 (No. 201, 203) respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24,810,000 [= KRW 7,200,000 for June 1, 13,410,000 for 2,400,000 for 7,200,000 for 7-12/12] as to June of the instant complaint and 2,000 for 2,40,000 for 1,200,000], and as to this, from February 18, 2017 to August 9, 2017, the day following the delivery of a copy of the written request for the correction of the purport of the complaint and the cause of the claim, 5% per annum from the day following the date of this judgment until August 9, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day until the day of full payment.

The Plaintiff sought reimbursement of the cleaning expenses for each room and the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for three rooms from July 2016 to December 2017. However, as seen earlier, the Defendant delivered two rooms to the Plaintiff around June 2016, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the payment of cleaning expenses. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for exceeding the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for two rooms is rejected.

B. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is asserted as D Co., Ltd. operated by the party to the lease agreement, but the defendant's argument is not accepted since it is against the statement of each lease agreement, which is a disposal letter, and there is a lack of evidence

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is within the scope of the above recognition.