1. The defendant is paid KRW 31,940,640 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, an apartment as stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

On January 5, 2012, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment to the Defendant by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000 and the lease period of KRW 7, 201 from March 7, 2012 to March 6, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). At that time, the Plaintiff received the lease deposit from the Defendant.

All the plaintiff and the defendant did not notify the renewal before the expiration of the term of lease.

【Ground of recognition” without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings by the defendant, the instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed until March 6, 2016 pursuant to Article 6 (1) and (2) of the Housing Lease Protection Act by failing to notify all the plaintiff and the defendant of the rejection of renewal before the expiration of the initial lease term.

The Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to refuse renewal by the instant lawsuit before the renewed lease term expires, and the instant lease agreement was terminated on March 6, 2016.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case to the plaintiff.

The defendant asserts that he/she would purchase the apartment of this case as to the defendant's argument, that he/she cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim, since he/she decided to purchase the apartment of this case from the plaintiff's model C in 33,00,000 won.

The plaintiff is only recognized as the owner of the apartment of this case according to the entry of the evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, there is no evidence to conclude that the apartment of this case was authorized to dispose of the apartment of this case to C.

Therefore, the defendant cannot set up against the plaintiff on the ground of the above agreement with C, and the defendant's above argument cannot be accepted.

In addition, the defendant's simultaneous performance defense is related to the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the apartment of this case and the plaintiff's obligation to return lease deposit and beneficial cost.