1. On January 5, 2009, the lower court acknowledged that, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the Plaintiff entered into a first lease agreement between Defendant C&A SPP SPPPPP (hereinafter “Defendant C&P”) and the Plaintiff to lease the first and second floors of the instant store from January 5, 2009 to January 4, 2014, with the lease term of KRW 200 million from January 5, 2009, the lease deposit amount of KRW 26 million, monthly rent of KRW 26 million, and determined that the first lease agreement terminated on January 4, 2014.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the evidence duly admitted and the records of this case, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the timing of termination of a lease agreement on the ground of delinquency in rent, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

The Supreme Court precedents cited in the grounds of appeal are different from this case, and thus are inappropriate to be invoked in this case.

2. As to the possession after termination of the lease agreement Nos. 1 and 2

A. Since the duty to return the leased object, which was incurred upon the termination of the lease agreement, and the duty to return the remainder after deducting the lessor’s overdue rent, etc., is concurrently performed, insofar as the lessor did not lose the lessee’s right of defense of simultaneous performance due to the lessor’s performance of duty to return the remainder of the lease deposit or for reasons such as lawful performance and provision, etc., even if the lessee continues to possess the leased object after the termination of the lease agreement, it cannot be deemed an illegal possession.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da6497, May 29, 1998; 2014Da204253, Aug. 20, 2014). Meanwhile, in the lease of real estate, a lessee is in the lease of real estate.