1. The defendant shall pay KRW 160,000 to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. Facts of premise;

A. On April 18, 2016, the Plaintiff leased D Building E (E) of Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “E”) as the lease deposit amount of KRW 160,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 20,000, May 20, 2016 to May 19, 2018.

(hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”). B.

The Plaintiff transferred the full amount of the lease deposit from April 18, 2016 to May 13, 2016 to the account of C, and filed a move-in report under E on May 16, 2016. Meanwhile, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name on September 7, 2016, for sale and purchase.

C. On April 5, 2018, the Plaintiff rejected the renewal of the lease of this case and sought the return of the lease deposit. Around that time, the Defendant, who received the above content certification, rejected the return on the ground that he did not know the details due to the change of the representative director, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 3-5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the premise, as long as the Plaintiff, who succeeded to the status of a lessor as stipulated in the Housing Lease Protection Act, by acquiring the ownership of subparagraph E, which is the object of lease after the lease of this case, sent the certificate of contents and sent the legitimate intention of refusal of renewal, the lease was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the Defendant is obligated to return

B. As of the date of the closing of the argument in this case, the Plaintiff voluntarily recognizes that he occupies subparagraph E, which is the object of lease, and seek for the payment of damages for delay from the day after the expiration of the above period.

However, regardless of the defendant's simultaneous performance defense, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay is without merit, unless there is any evidence that the plaintiff, regardless of the defendant's simultaneous performance defense, by providing legitimate performance of the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the leased object.

Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764 Delivered on July 10, 2001