1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the facts of the determination on the principal amount of lease deposit, the instant lease contract was terminated on October 31, 2017 upon the Plaintiff’s notice of termination and the expiration of the term, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund KRW 33,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The parties’ assertion as to the portion of damages for delay is that the Plaintiff had a director prior to the termination of the instant lease contract and resided in another place. The Plaintiff, in fact, took over the object of the instant lease contract, and the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from the termination date of the instant lease contract to the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff continuously occupied the object of the instant lease contract without delivering it. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts to the purport that the obligation of the lessee to deliver the leased object and the obligation of the lessor to return the deposit amount are not concurrently performed. 2) Since the relevant legal principle is related to the lessee’s obligation to deliver the leased object and the obligation of the lessor to return the deposit, the lessee is required to provide the lessor with the delivery of the leased object (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da77697, Feb. 26, 2002). Thus, the period and the extent of one party’s failure to provide the leased object to the other party in a bilateral contract should be strictly performed.