1. The Defendant shall deliver to the Plaintiff the real estate indicated in the attached list, and from July 7, 2018 to the delivery date of the pertinent real estate.

On July 7, 2018, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) to the Defendant by designating KRW 10 million in deposit, KRW 8 million in monthly rent, and KRW 9 million in deposit, and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 9 million in deposit to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s payment of the rent is deemed to have been led to the Defendant’s confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the instant real estate lease contract was terminated upon delivery to the Defendant on October 19, 2018, of a duplicate of the instant complaint containing the declaration of intent to terminate the lease contract.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and to pay the rent or unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent, calculated at the rate of KRW 80,000 per month from July 7, 2018 to the delivery date of the said real estate.

The defendant seems to dispute the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the deposit to be deducted is still in existence. However, since the lease deposit is delivered to guarantee the rent arising from the lease to the time when the lessee delivers the object and the obligation of other lessees after the termination of the lease contract, even if the lease contract is terminated, if the object is not delivered, the lessee cannot refuse to pay the rent in arrears on the ground that the deposit exists.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da24881 delivered on July 27, 1999. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 98 and 213 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs and a declaration of provisional execution.