1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance added to the part claimed by the plaintiff as the cause of the principal claim is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a supplementary judgment as to the part claimed by the plaintiff as the cause of the principal claim as follows. Thus, it is citing

The term “A” of the 5 lines, 6 lines, 7 lines, and 12 lines below the 6 lines, 7 lines, and 12 lines shall each be read as “H”.

8. From December 23, 2015 (Monthly 23, 2016) to July 22, 2016, “seven months” shall be deleted.

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s additional assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant continued to possess the instant building from August 23, 2017 to June 22, 2018. However, even if the Defendant did not gain any profit because it was not actually used or used, the possession of the instant building during the said period constitutes an illegal possession, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the amount equivalent to the rent during the pertinent period.

B. Since the duty to return the leased object and the duty to return the remainder after deducting the lessor from the lessor’s default due to the termination of the lease, if the lessee continuously occupied the leased building by exercising his/her right of defense of simultaneous performance even after the termination of the lease, the lessor performed the duty to return the deposit to the lessee.

In regard to the fact that the tenant loses his/her right to defense of simultaneous performance due to such reasons as the tenant's duty to protect the tenant's life was omitted due to the provision of the actual performance, the tenant's possession of the above building cannot be deemed illegal possession unless there is a lessor's assertion.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da38980 delivered on November 23, 1993, etc.). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is between the Defendant and the Defendant since the time when the Defendant left the instant building.