A. The Defendant’s duty to deliver the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) concluded a lease agreement with the former owner C as to the lease deposit of KRW 5 million, monthly rent of KRW 200,000 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) and paid the said deposit. The Plaintiff is a co-owner who acquired the instant real estate from the former owner, the lease term of the instant lease expires on January 28, 2021, and the Defendant did not pay the rent from August 29, 2020, as there is no dispute between the parties. Thus, according to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff upon the termination of the lease term, barring any special circumstance.

B. (1) Determination as to simultaneous performance defense (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da54300, Mar. 14, 197; 88Da3465, Dec. 13, 198; 88DaDa3465, Dec. 13, 198; 88DaDa3465, Dec. 13, 198; 88DaDa3465, Dec. 13, 198). The collection obligor does not lose the defense right to seek simultaneous performance against the third obligor based on the seized claim against the third obligor.

The third debt, which caused the defense to be admitted and simultaneously performed, is merely a restriction by the effect of the above collection order (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da73490, Mar. 9, 2001). (2) According to the statement of evidence No. 3, the defendant's plaintiff is the plaintiff.