Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) received KRW 40,00,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and simultaneously received KRW 40,000 from the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Following the facts of recognition are either a dispute between the parties or a statement of evidence of Gap 1 to 9 (including branch numbers), and it can be acknowledged by the overall purport of this Court's expert appraisal commission to Gap 10 and 11, and each statement of evidence of Gap 10 and 11 is insufficient to reverse the recognition.

A. At the time of around August 8, 2011, the Defendant: (a) leased the instant real estate from Nonparty D, who was the owner of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at the time, KRW 40,00,000 per month; and (b) opened and operated a restaurant with the name “E” from around September 4, 2011.

B. On July 31, 2018, the Plaintiff purchased the instant real estate from the foregoing D and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name on February 8, 2019, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the said lease agreement around that time.

(c)

The above lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on August 7, 2019, and the appropriate amount of right of the above restaurant operated by the Defendant as of the termination date of the lease agreement is KRW 18,429,280 (=Tangible Property 1,421,280, which is movable property of KRW 3,100,000, which is movable property of KRW 13,908,00).

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's main claim

A. As to the claim for extradition of real estate, the fact that the lease contract on the instant real estate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated on August 7, 2019 was seen earlier. In such a case, the lessor’s duty to return the lease deposit and the duty to deliver the leased object of the Defendant, the lessee, have a relationship of simultaneous performance. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time upon receiving the payment of KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the claim for damages due to nonperformance of the obligation to deliver real estate is terminated.