1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

The reasons for this court's acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for adding "2. Additional Judgment" to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s assertion for additional determination did not ordered the instant apartment to be ordered by the Defendant, which caused the Plaintiff to rent another apartment due to the Plaintiff’s failure to move into the instant apartment, to pay KRW 4,000,000 for brokerage commission, and KRW 2,000,00 for directors’ expenses. Since the instant apartment, which is a new apartment, was not paid for the repair period, and the Plaintiff spent KRW 2,00,000,000 for the repair cost for the trial site, etc. without receiving any repair during the defect repair period, the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 8,00,000 for damages (=4,000,000 for 2,00,000,000 for the damages).

The lawsuit of this case is filed by the defendant who is in arrears with the rent of 18 months and did not order the apartment of this case, so the defendant should bear the whole costs of the lawsuit.

Judgment

Inasmuch as the duty to return the leased object and the duty to return the remainder after deducting the lessor’s overdue rent, etc. arising from the termination of the lease agreement as to the first argument is concurrently performed, insofar as the lessor does not lose the lessee’s right to defense of simultaneous performance due to the lessor’s performance, such as performing the duty to return the remainder of the lease deposit or providing legitimate performance, the possession may not be deemed illegal even if the lessee continues to possess the leased object after the termination of the lease agreement. The lessee is not liable for damages.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff cannot be acknowledged that the defendant's delay was caused due to the failure of the defendant to perform his duty to return the lease deposit to the defendant, even though the plaintiff fulfilled his duty to return the lease deposit to the defendant.