A. On March 11, 201, the Defendant leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 1.5 million, monthly rent of KRW 240,000 (20% per annum), management expenses (20% per annum per annum), KRW 8800,000 for the excursion ship fee, and KRW 1.5 million from April 2, 201 to April 1, 2012 for the term of lease (hereinafter “instant lease”). At that time, the Defendant received KRW 1.5 million from the Plaintiff.

B. On April 1, 2012, the Plaintiff retired from the instant building on April 20, 2012 after completing the lease registration on April 3, 2012 after the lease term expires, but has yet to possess keys.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on April 1, 2012, and thus, the lessor is obligated to pay 1.5 million won to the Plaintiff, who is the lessee, due to the termination of the instant lease contract.

B. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay, the Plaintiff also claims for the payment of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 21, 2012 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order from the date of service of the original copy of the instant payment order, and at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning

However, the above obligation of the Defendant to return the deposit is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the above building, and the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay on the ground of delay in the duty to return the deposit only after receiving the opposite obligation or being provided with the duty to return the deposit. However, unless the Plaintiff did not deliver the key to the building of this case to the Plaintiff, the fact of leaving the building of this case cannot be said to have been fulfilled, and otherwise,