2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

A. On August 19, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant for the lease of KRW 330,000,000 as the lease deposit, from October 4, 2013 to October 3, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid KRW 25,00,000 on the date of the contract, and KRW 350,000,000 on October 4, 2013 to the Defendant.

B. On September 2, 2015, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant, on October 3, 2015, a content-certified mail stating the intent to request the repayment of KRW 330 million, which is the expiration date of the lease term, on October 3, 2015.

C. On November 3, 2015, the Plaintiff was a non-standing director of the instant apartment.

On May 3, 2016, the Defendant returned KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff. On May 31, 2016, the Defendant intended to refund the remainder of KRW 300 million of the lease deposit, but the Plaintiff refused to receive KRW 120 million of the remainder after receiving KRW 120 million of the lease deposit.

On June 2, 2016, the Defendant deposited the remainder lease deposit KRW 180 million with the Seoul Northern District Court No. 2586 in 2016.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was a director on November 3, 2015, and delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant in its original condition. As such, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff delayed payment calculated by adding a rate of 15% per annum from November 4, 2015 on the day following the day when the instant apartment was delivered, in addition to returning KRW 330 million to the lease deposit.

B. Determination of the lessee’s duty to specify the leased object and duty to return the lessor’s deposit is in a relationship of simultaneous performance.

Therefore, the lessor's right to defense of simultaneous performance is extinguished and the lessor is liable for delay in return of the deposit.