2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

In addition, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not have a duty to cooperate with people with the intent to rent the leased house prior to the expiration date of the above lease agreement, but refused to receive KRW 15,00,000 out of the lease deposit provided by the Defendant on November 19, 2015, and that the Plaintiff’s repayment of the lease deposit due to the Plaintiff’s delay due to the Plaintiff’s obligee’s delay, such as the Plaintiff’s delayed payment of the remainder from the new lessee due to the lease registration completed in relation to the leased house, and thus, there is no obligation to pay damages for delay of the lease deposit.

First, according to the argument about cancellation of the lease registration, Gap evidence No. 1, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff completed the lease registration on the leased house on February 2, 2016 pursuant to the lease registration order (Seoul Central District Court 2015Kadan305). Since the lease registration under Article 3-3 of the Housing Lease Protection Act is completed in the state where the lessor does not return the deposit even after the lease contract has already been terminated, it is not interpreted that the lessee is in the simultaneous performance relationship with the lessee for the repayment of the lease deposit, which is already in fact delayed, and for the preservation of the lessee's right corresponding thereto, the above lease registration is not interpreted as having the duty of cancelling the lease registration. In particular, in light of the fact that the lease registration is mainly focusing on the duty of protecting the lessee's opposing power or preferential repayment right.