2. The part concerning the claim for delay damages in the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

3.(a)

Defendant B.

The reasoning for this part of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

We examine ex officio the claim for delay damages in the lawsuit of this case as to the legitimacy of the claim for delay damages in the lawsuit of this case.

If a lawsuit for future performance of a claim or conditional claim that may arise in the future is lawful, it should be expected that the legal de facto relationship, which serves as the basis of the occurrence of the claim, exists at the time of the closing of argument, and that such status will continue in

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Nu4902, 4919 delivered on November 11, 1997). The Plaintiff sought damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the day when the delivery of the instant real estate was completed to the day of complete payment, in preparation for the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the obligation to return the lease deposit even after the transfer of the instant real estate from Defendant C.

However, since the obligation to return the lease deposit to Defendant B against Defendant C is concurrently performed with the obligation to deliver the instant real estate to Defendant C, it cannot be deemed that the cause for Defendant C’s nonperformance of obligation arises definitely at the time of the closing of argument in the trial.

Therefore, the part of the claim for delay damages in the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it is not deemed necessary to claim in advance.

The plaintiff's assertion on the claim for return of the lease deposit has the right to claim the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 15 million against the defendant C.

The plaintiff, on behalf of the defendant C, terminated the lease contract of this case on the grounds of the delinquency in rent for not less than two months in arrears of the defendant B, and the plaintiff, as preliminary, sought to transfer the real estate of this case to the defendant B on the grounds of the expiration of the lease term of this case, and against the defendant C.