1. The defendant shall deliver the building stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff, and at the same time, KRW 32,800,000 to the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, on September 7, 2018, the plaintiff leased the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the building of this case") from the defendant from September 7, 2018 by setting the lease deposit of KRW 32,80,000, and the lease term from September 23, 2018 to September 22, 2019. The plaintiff sent the document to the defendant on August 12, 2019, stating that "the plaintiff has no intention to renew the contract and requests the return of the deposit at the expiration of the lease term," and the plaintiff has reached the defendant around that time.

According to the above facts, the above lease contract has expired on September 22, 2019, and the defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 32,800,000 to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff still occupies the building of this case, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to perform it simultaneously. Thus, inasmuch as it is acknowledged that the lessor's obligation to return the deposit and the lessee's obligation to deliver the object are concurrently performed, and the plaintiff still occupies the building of this case on the record, the defendant is obligated to pay 32,800,000 won to the plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the building of this case from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff also sought a payment for delay of the lease deposit, but unless the lessee fails to provide the delivery of the object, it cannot be deemed that the lessor’s obligation to return the deposit was delayed performance. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the delivery of the building of this case. Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant is liable for delay for the return of the deposit.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.