2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

2. Judgment by public notice of applicable provisions of Acts: Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act;

3. In addition to KRW 80,000,000, the Plaintiff’s partial rejection of the lease deposit, the Plaintiff also claims the Defendant for the payment of damages for delay.

However, the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object and the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit are both simultaneously performed. If both obligations are jointly performed in the bilateral contract, even if one of the parties’ obligation becomes due, the obligor is not liable for the delay of performance until the other party’s obligation is performed, even if the other party’s obligation becomes due, and such effect does not necessarily occur to the claimant who is not liable for the delay of performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764 delivered on July 10, 2001. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff returned the leased object of this case to the Defendant or continued the provision of performance thereof. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay is without merit.