A. On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff leased an apartment specified in paragraph (1) of the order (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”) owned by the Defendant from the Defendant during a fixed period from August 12, 2014 to October 15, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “instant lease contract”); and on October 16, 2014, the instant lease contract was renewed by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 55.8 million from October 16, 2014 to October 15, 2015; and again, on October 15, 2015, the lease contract of this case was renewed by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 60,140,000,000 from October 16, 2014 to October 15, 2015.

B. While the Plaintiff renewed the instant lease agreement on two occasions, the Plaintiff paid KRW 60,140,000 to the Defendant a deposit for lease.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entrys at Gap's 1 to 4 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on October 15, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff KRW 61.4 million.

The Plaintiff claimed for the repayment of the lease deposit of KRW 61.4 million from October 16, 2017, but the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the lessee’s obligation to deliver the leased object are in simultaneous performance relationship. An obligor with the right of defense of simultaneous performance does not lead to the delay of performance unless the other party first performs his/her obligation or fails to provide any performance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da31250, Dec. 23, 1997). Since there is no assertion as to the Plaintiff’s delivery of the apartment of this case, which is the leased object, to the Defendant before October 15, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim until the apartment of this case is delivered from the plaintiff.