A. On July 11, 2016, Defendant B, the primary Defendant B, who completed a trust registration with respect to the second floor E of the D building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on both weeks, is the truster of the instant real estate.

B. On November 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting the lease term from November 2, 2016 to November 2, 2018, setting the lease deposit amount at KRW 50,000,000.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract,” and Defendant C is the lessor, and Defendant B is the agent, but Defendant B recognized as the party to the instant lease contract).

The Plaintiff paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 on October 1, 2016 to Defendant B, and KRW 50,000,000 on November 2, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6 of Gap evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion primarily against the Defendant B, who is a lessor under a lease agreement, sought the refund of the lease deposit and the payment for the delayed payment thereof.

B. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, since the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant B was terminated, the defendant B is obligated to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

However, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay is without merit.

In order to order the payment of damages for delay of the lease deposit, it shall be proved that the real estate of this case, which is the object of lease, has been delivered to the defendant B or has been provided for the performance thereof.

In addition, even if one of the parties who are responsible for the debt in the simultaneous performance relationship has first offered the reality and had the other party delayed, if the provision of the performance has not been continued, the performance will be provided in the past.