1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 300,000,000 to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 9, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the term of KRW 300 million, and the term of lease from September 22, 2017 to September 21, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. Around September 22, 2017, the Defendant delivered the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid 300 million won the lease deposit to the Defendant by October 31, 2017.

C. After being handed over the instant real estate, the Plaintiff had been living together with the Plaintiff’s spouse and children. However, since April 12, 2018, due to the extinguishment and divorce lawsuit with his spouse, the Plaintiff did not reside in the instant real estate any longer.

On May 31, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that “The instant lease contract is terminated on September 21, 2019 when the contract term expires, and thus, returned KRW 300 million on the same day to return the lease deposit.”

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts based on the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement terminated on September 21, 2019 upon the expiration of the contract term.

Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 300 million.

The Plaintiff also sought payment of damages for delay from September 22, 2019, which is the day after the termination date of the instant lease agreement, for KRW 300 million. However, in order to have reasonable grounds for the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay of the lease deposit, the Plaintiff should be recognized to have delivered or continued to provide the instant real estate to the Defendant.

However, even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff’s spouse and children continued to reside in and use the instant real estate until now.