1. The Defendant, from October 5, 201 to the completion date of delivery of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet, from KRW 16,400,00 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 26, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a lease agreement for the instant housing owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of lease from July 26, 2015 to July 26, 2017, the deposit amount of KRW 20 million, and the rent of KRW 400,000 per month (payment on July 5, 201).

B. Around May 2017, the Plaintiff returned 2 million won out of the deposit to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendants are obligated to deliver the instant housing to the Plaintiff and pay the Plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the cost of restoring remote areas, the unpaid rent, and the rent.

3. Determination

A. The instant lease agreement on the delivery of leased object and the refund of deposit was terminated upon the expiration of the lease period.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant, a lessee, is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff, a lessor, is obligated to pay to the Defendant the balance of the lease deposit (20 million won - the amount of deposit returned around May 2017). Each of the above obligations is related to simultaneous performance.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the descriptions and the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2-2, 1-2, 2-2, 1-2, and 2 (including each number), the instant house was a building for which approval for use was obtained on or around June 2008, and the fact that the Defendant had already fung a large number of fungs in the wall corner part of the instant house at the time of the commencement of residing in the instant house. Considering the above circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the remote area of the instant house was damaged during the period of the instant lease solely on the basis of the appraisal results of Party A’s video or appraiser F, including each number, or appraiser F’s appraisal results, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiff's assertion of the payment or deduction of the cost of recovery in remote areas is with merit.