1. The defendant's delivery from the plaintiff to the plaintiff 150,000,000 apartment house C 209 Dong-dong 105.

1. If Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3-1, 2, and 4 as to the cause of the claim reveal the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the defendant on July 27, 201 with respect to the lease deposit of 150,000,000, and the term of lease of 105,000,000 (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) with respect to the defendant and Young-gu, Young-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) from September 30, 201 to September 30, 2013, and the plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the defendant around that time.

According to the above facts, since the above lease contract was terminated due to the expiration of the term, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 150,000,000 to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion and judgment as to it

A. 1) Nonparty D, the Defendant’s fraud, asked the Defendant to lend the name to the Defendant to purchase the instant apartment, and D, upon obtaining the Defendant’s consent, purchased the instant apartment and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant. After concluding the said lease agreement with D on July 27, 201, the Plaintiff paid the above lease deposit to D. Since the lessor of the said lease agreement was D as the actual owner of the instant apartment, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant, who is merely the nominal owner of the instant apartment, is without merit. 2) The Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant, which was merely the nominal owner of the instant apartment, is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of the Defendant’s assertion solely on the written evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's defense of simultaneous performance shall be a defense of simultaneous performance that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim for refund of deposit for lease until he delivers the apartment of this case.

On the other hand, the fact that the Defendant concluded the above lease agreement with the Plaintiff is as seen earlier, and the fact that the Defendant delivered the instant apartment to the Plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the above lease agreement is between the parties.