1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 90 million and the lease period up to July 23, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with respect to the part indicated in the attached drawings (hereinafter “instant real estate”) among E in Suwon-si E, Suwon-si, which is located in Suwon-si, and agreed to notify the Plaintiff of whether to renew the lease contract two months prior to the expiration date.

B. On May 24, 2017, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the absence of intent to extend the instant lease agreement.

C. On January 17, 2019, the Defendant filed a lawsuit claiming the return of deposit against the Plaintiff (U.S. District Court 2018Da533481) due to the Plaintiff’s failure to refund the lease deposit, and on January 17, 2019, the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 90 million to the Defendant simultaneously with the delivery of the instant real estate from the Defendant” (hereinafter “instant judgment”) became final and conclusive as it is.

On April 12, 2019, the decision to commence compulsory auction (F) was rendered on two multi-household houses owned by the Plaintiff upon the Defendant’s application based on the original copy of the instant judgment with executory power.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant did not perform its duty to deliver the instant real estate in relation to simultaneous performance. 2) The Defendant did not pay management expenses, water charges, etc. from July 24, 2015 to July 2019. Thus, the amount equivalent to the above amount should be deducted from the lease deposit.

3) The Defendant provided the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit as a pledge security against others. Accordingly, compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of this case shall be dismissed.

B. 1. Determination 1. Paragraph 1 of Article 41 of the Civil Execution Act is simultaneously with the performance of the opposite obligation.