1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On October 7, 2008, the Defendant paid KRW 100,000 as the down payment of KRW 3,000,000, and KRW 250,000 per month of the rent without specifying the period of the instant house from E (hereinafter “the instant lease”). On November 7, 2008, the Defendant paid KRW 2,90,000 as the remainder deposit and completed the move-in report after receiving the transfer of the instant house.

B. The Plaintiff purchased the instant house from E on December 31, 2013 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

C. On May 12, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail to the effect that the instant lease had already been terminated, and the said content-certified mail arrived at the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On the ground that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant lease was terminated, and the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant house, the Defendant asserts that the instant lease was not yet terminated, and thus, the Defendant cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. Determination 1) According to the facts of paragraph 1, the term of the lease of this case was two years (Article 4(1) of the Housing Lease Protection Act), and the term of the lease of this case was two years thereafter (Article 6(1) and the term of the lease of this case was terminated on November 6, 2014, since the Plaintiff acquired ownership of the housing of this case and succeeded to the status of the lessor as of December 31, 2013, the termination date of the lease of this case was notified on November 6, 2014, which was between the six months and one month before the Plaintiff, to the effect that the renewal of the lease of this case was refused on May 12, 2014, the term of the lease of this case was terminated on November 6, 2014.

(Article 6 (1) of the above Act. 3, however, the defendant has a defense of simultaneous performance, and the defendant's duty to deliver the house of this case and the obligation to return the deposit money of the plaintiff are concurrently performed.