A. On May 24, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant housing”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 200,000,000, and the lease term period from May 25, 2016 to May 24, 2018, and paid KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant on May 26, 2016.

B. The instant lease agreement terminated on May 24, 2018 upon the Plaintiff’s notification of the Plaintiff’s refusal to renew the lease agreement.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, 11, and 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 200,000,000 to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

B. 1) First of all, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff still resides in the house of this case, the claim for delay damages is unfair and the plaintiff asserts to the purport of defense for simultaneous performance, so the defendant's argument is reasonable, and the tenant's duty to deliver the leased object and the lessor's duty to return the lease deposit is in a relationship of simultaneous performance. Therefore, the defendant's argument is reasonable. 2) Furthermore, the defendant's argument that it is difficult to return the lease deposit of this case because the plaintiff did not cooperate to allow the plaintiff to purchase or rent the building of this case to view the building of this case. However, it is difficult to recognize it only by the evidence submitted by the defendant, and even if the lease contract of this case is terminated due to the expiration of the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff cannot reject the return of

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is rejected.

3. According to the conclusion, the defendant's delivery of the instant house from the plaintiff at the same time.