A. On August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with E by setting the lease deposit amount of Kimcheon-si apartment and D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) of KRW 34,00,000, and the lease term from October 1, 2014 to September 30, 2016, and paid the said lease deposit.

Since September 24, 2016, the Plaintiff and E concluded a lease contract again by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 32,000,000, the lease term from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On July 16, 2018, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment on July 16, 2018.

C. On August 20, 2018, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that he/she had no intent to renew the instant lease agreement, and requested the Defendant to refund the lease deposit.

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

2. According to the judgment and the facts of the above recognition, since the lease contract of this case was terminated to the expiration date, the defendant who succeeded to the lessor status under the lease contract of this case is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 32,000,000 to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff possessed the apartment of this case and raised a defense of simultaneous performance. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to return the lease deposit to the tenant at the time of the termination of the lease contract and the obligation to deliver the building to the tenant at the same time. Therefore, the above defense is justified.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 32,000,000 to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant apartment from the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as there is no ground for appeal.