1. The defendant is simultaneously with the delivery of the plaintiff-appellant B and C of the ground officetels B and C of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 30, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to lease (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) a lease deposit of KRW 120,000,000, and the period from February 29, 2016 to February 28, 2017 with the lease deposit for the instant officetel No. 805 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Gangseo-gu and C (hereinafter “instant officetel”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit to the Defendant and received the instant officetel delivery.

B. Thereafter, on December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to change the term of the instant lease agreement from December 30, 2016 to December 29, 2017, and increase the lease deposit in KRW 140,000,000. Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 20,000,000 in difference of the lease deposit.

C. The Plaintiff decided not to extend the contract term any longer with the Defendant on the business that the contract term of this case expires.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the instant lease contract was terminated on December 30, 2017, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 140,000,000 ( KRW 20,000,000) for the lease deposit.

B. The Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense is to the effect that the lease deposit cannot be returned before the instant officetel is delivered from the Plaintiff.

The defendant is obligated to return the instant lease deposit to the plaintiff upon the termination of the term of the instant lease agreement, and the plaintiff has the duty to deliver the instant officetel to the defendant, and such two obligations of the plaintiff and the defendant are in the simultaneous performance relationship. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is with merit.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 140,00,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time with the delivery of the instant officetel from the Plaintiff.

3. Conclusion.