1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 18, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant that leases the instant real estate as KRW 60 million, KRW 450,000 per month, KRW 450,00 per month, and KRW 24 months from November 10, 2015 to November 10, 2017, and delivered the instant real estate to the Defendant on November 10, 2015.

B. The above lease agreement was terminated on November 10, 2017, without explicit or implied renewal.

C. However, even after the Defendant continued to possess the instant real estate, and paid the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to the rent from October 1, 2018 to October 10, 2018, but thereafter, the amount equivalent to the rent from October 11, 2018 was not paid any more. The amount equivalent to the unpaid rent from April 10, 2019 shall be 2,70,000 won (= = 6 months from October 11, 2018 to April 10, 2019 + 450,000 x 6 months). The remainder of the lease deposit shall be 57,30,000,000 won (=60,000,000 won - 2,70,000 won).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4 (including branch numbers), facts which are obvious in calculation, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, as the plaintiff seeks, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the plaintiff at the same time with the payment of the remaining lease deposit, after deducting the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent calculated at the rate of KRW 450,00 per month from April 11, 2019 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate of this case from the date following the base date of deduction equivalent to the rent of KRW 57,30,000 from the above remaining lease deposit from the plaintiff due to the termination of the above lease contract.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance which concluded the same conclusion in accordance with the reduction of the purport of the claim in this court is legitimate.