1. The Defendant shall enter from May 10, 2016 to 11,248,510 won from the Plaintiff at KRW 68,00,00.

1. On December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on the instant real estate with the Defendant on the grounds of the determination of the cause of the claim. The Defendant used and used the instant real estate up to the date, the Defendant was in arrears at least three vehicles, and the Plaintiff expressed through the instant complaint the Defendant’s intent to terminate the instant lease agreement on the grounds of the Defendant’s delay. The fact that the instant complaint was served on March 24, 2016 on the Defendant on the grounds that there was no particular dispute between the parties, and thus, the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to terminate the lease.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, pay the unpaid rent, and return the unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent by the completion date of delivery of the instant real estate.

2. The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant paid 68 million won as lease deposit to the plaintiff.

This is understood as a simultaneous performance defense that could not respond to the request for delivery of the real estate of this case before the deposit for lease is returned.

Therefore, since there is no particular dispute between the parties that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff the lease deposit amount of KRW 68 million to the Plaintiff, the Defendant may refuse to deliver the instant real estate until he receives the amount obtained by deducting each amount as stated in the Disposition No. 1 from the Plaintiff, since the Defendant’s assertion is with merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.