The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning in this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the part of the judgment of the first instance is written as follows. Thus, the court cites the judgment of the first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. On the 2nd page 6 of the first instance judgment, the part written by the court below (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff") is deemed to be "A" as "A".

The first instance court's written appeal Nos. 21 to 4 shall be dismissed as follows.

【In light of the fact that it appears that the plaintiff had to conduct an examination, it is reasonable to deem that there was an obstacle to 1/4 of the monthly rent for the use and profit-making of the building of this case for three months in 2018, three months in 2019, three months in 2019, and six months in total. Thus, the defendant may refuse to pay rent to the defendant within the extent equivalent to 1/4 of the monthly rent for the above six months. Nevertheless, the defendant was paid the full amount of rent for three months in the above six months, and deducted the full amount of rent for the remaining three months from the lease deposit that the defendant must return to the plaintiff. Ultimately, the defendant arbitrarily deducted the full amount of rent for the six months in total from the lease deposit that the defendant must return to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the defendant unjust enrichment with respect to the total amount of rent for three months in total KRW 3.975,000,000 which the defendant received from the plaintiff. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the judgment of first instance, "No. 7" is declared.

On the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance, the following shall be added to the end of the fourth part.

【The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the duplicate of the complaint of this case, but the damages for delay in this case shall accrue from the day following the date the Plaintiff’s application for amendment of the purport of the claim of this case reaches the Defendant. Thus, the Plaintiff’s damages for delay exceeding the above recognition scope is without merit. The Plaintiff’s damages for delay in excess of the above recognition scope is without merit.

At the trial of the defendant, the number of this case is the plaintiff.