1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 130,000,000 to the plaintiff.

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 10, it can be acknowledged that the facts of the reasons for the attachment are as follows. Thus, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit KRW 130,000 to the plaintiff.

However, since the lessee's duty to deliver the leased object and the lessor's duty to return the lease deposit arising upon the termination of the lease are related to the simultaneous performance, the defendant shall pay the above money to the plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of real estate stated in the separate sheet from the plaintiff.

The plaintiff claimed for the payment of the damages for delay from the date of sentencing to the date of full payment of the lease deposit, but there is no assertion or proof on the fact that the plaintiff performed the obligation to deliver the leased object to the defendant or provided its performance. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the obligation to return the lease deposit was delayed, and the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.