1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 80,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amount of KRW 90 million with respect to the building C (hereinafter “instant building”) at the time of macro-city owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant building”) and paid KRW 90 million to the Defendant around that time by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 24 months from February 21, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff was living in the instant building without any agreement on renewal or extension of the period after the said lease term, and notified the Defendant on April 5, 2018 that the instant lease agreement would be terminated, and the Defendant returned KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on July 9, 2018, either there is no dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as a whole.

According to the above facts, the lease contract of this case, which was implicitly renewed, was terminated on July 5, 2018 after three months from April 5, 2018 when the defendant was notified of the termination of the contract by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 6-2 (3) of the Housing Lease Protection Act. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 80 million after deducting the amount of KRW 10 million, which the plaintiff was the person to whom the lease deposit of this case was returned, from the amount of KRW 90 million.

The Plaintiff sought payment of delayed payment for KRW 80 million from the next day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served. However, in the event that the lease contract is terminated, the lessee’s duty to deliver the leased object and the lessor’s duty to return the lease deposit are in the simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, unless the lessee does not deliver the leased object, the lessor’s duty to return the lease deposit does not lead to delay of performance. Therefore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred the building of this case to the Defendant solely with the statement in the evidence No.