1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim filed in the trial are dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2013, the Plaintiff leased, from the Defendant, 1.8 million won as security deposit, 1.8 million won as security deposit, 2.5 million won as security deposit, and the period from January 10, 2013 to January 9, 2015, the Plaintiff leased, from the Defendant, the Jeon-nam-gun apartment C Apartment-gun, 404, 209 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

B. On March 2, 2015, the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination as to the claim on the principal lawsuit

A. Regarding the plaintiff's claim for the return of the lease deposit of KRW 1.8 million, the defendant asserts that the above amount of KRW 1.8 million shall not remain if the sum of KRW 2,099,520 is deducted from the sum of the following amounts, and thus, the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim.

1) 1,429,400 won for restitution to the original state, 570,120 won (i.e., unjust enrichment equivalent to 500,000 won for unjust enrichment equivalent to 500,000 won for rent) arising from the possession and use of the apartment of this case for two months after the termination of lease (i.e., KRW 5,65,00 won for the inspection and replacement of the three-dimensional boiler, and KRW 464,40,00 for the replacement of the three-dimensional boiler, KRW 1,000 for the repair cost of the 1,64,400,000 for the typopon (one hundred thousand,000,000 won for the typopon repair cost)

B. First of all, the fact that the Plaintiff delivered the apartment of this case to the Defendant on March 2, 2015 is as seen earlier, but there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff occupied the apartment of this case after January 9, 2015, and gained substantial benefits by using and making profits from the apartment in accordance with the original purpose of the lease. Therefore, this part of the allegation is without merit.

Supreme Court Decision 98Da8554 delivered on July 10, 1998

C. Next, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant was in a state of sponsing 3,6,9,10,16,17, and 18 (including paper numbers) at the time of delivering the instant apartment to the Plaintiff based on the images of the evidence Nos. 3 and 3,6,9,10,16,17, and 18 (including paper numbers), and other evidence.