1. The defendant shall pay 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 11, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit amounting to KRW 50,000,000 and KRW 50,000 with respect to the lease deposit amount, from September 11, 2015 to September 11, 2017, and paid KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant.

B. The above lease was terminated upon the expiration of the term.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1 (Lease Contract) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff, which caused the claim, seek the return of the above lease deposit and the payment of damages for delay.

3. Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Judgment by public notice) of the applicable provisions of Acts;

4. Partial dismissal.

A. The Plaintiff also seeks payment of damages for delay of KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant.

B. However, a lessee’s obligation to return the leased object and a lessor’s obligation to return the leased deposit are both simultaneous performance relationships. If both obligations are jointly performance relationships in a bilateral contract, even if one of the parties’ obligation becomes due, the obligor is not liable for the delay of performance until the other party is provided, even if the other party’s obligation becomes due. Such effect does not necessarily arise to the claimant who is not liable for the delay of performance exercise the right of defense for simultaneous performance.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764 delivered on July 10, 2001). C.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff returned the leased object of this case to the Defendant or continues to provide performance.

The plaintiff's claim for damages for delay is groundless.