A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff leased the instant building C and No. 405 (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant on May 28, 2015 by setting the deposit amount of KRW 125,00,000, and the period from June 4, 2015 to February 3, 2017, respectively; and the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a deposit of KRW 125,00,000,000 under the said lease agreement.

B. According to the above facts, the above lease contract was terminated on February 3, 2017, and thus, the defendant is obligated to return 125,000,000 won as well as the delivery of the building of this case from the plaintiff.

[Plaintiff’s compensation for delay for KRW 125,00,00 is claimed as well. However, in a case where a lease contract is terminated, the lessor’s obligation to return the deposit and the lessee’s obligation to fulfill simultaneously. Thus, in order for the lessee to seek a lessor to have a delayed liability for the deposit, the lessee must provide the lessor with the delivery of the leased object (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77697, Feb. 26, 2002). There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the delivery of the instant building after the termination of the said lease (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77697, Feb. 26, 2002). Thus, the Plaintiff is a person who continues to occupy

2) The plaintiff's assertion is without merit. 2. The plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is decided as per Disposition by applying the proviso of Article 98 and Article 101 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.