A. On March 2015, the Plaintiff leased the instant building to the Defendant on March 16, 201 by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 900,000,000 to the end of March 16, 2017. Accordingly, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant occupied or used the instant building from around that time. Based on such factual basis, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to deliver the instant building on the ground that the lease relationship with the instant building had been lawfully terminated due to the expiration of the above lease period. As long as the Defendant did not have issued the so-called “notice of refusal” notification from the Plaintiff between six months and one month before the expiration of the lease period of the instant building, the said lease agreement is difficult to comply with the Plaintiff’s request for the delivery of the instant building, but it is not acceptable to accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff’s partial entry or image of the Plaintiff and the witness registration certificate and the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the Plaintiff’s testimony was partially rejected.

B. However, as the defendant's argument that he paid all monthly rent to the plaintiff was the defense of simultaneous performance with the return of the lease deposit, the lease contract on the building of this case has already been lawfully terminated due to the above circumstances, the defendant's duty to deliver the building of this case and the plaintiff's duty to return the lease deposit of this case shall be deemed to have a relation of simultaneous performance. Thus, the defendant's argument that it seems this point is justified.

2. According to the conclusion, the defendant is entitled to deposit money for the lease of the building of this case from the plaintiff.