1. The defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 220,000,000.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. The description of the claim is as shown in the annexed sheet of claim.

2. Article 208 (3) 2, and Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts (a judgment on deemed as private capital);

3. On November 3, 2018, the Plaintiff appears to have claimed for payment of KRW 220,000,000 among the lease deposit against the Defendant acquired from C, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from November 3, 2018 to the date of full payment.

The Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit and C’s obligation to return the leased object are related to the simultaneous performance, and where both parties’ obligation are related to the simultaneous performance, even if one party’s obligation becomes due, even if one party’s obligation becomes due, the other party’s failure to perform his/her obligation does not occur until the other party’s obligation is provided. Such effect does not arise only when the party claiming the exemption from the liability for delay has exercised his/her right to defense of simultaneous performance against the other party’s

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da40851, 40868 delivered on August 22, 1997). In this case, unless there is any assertion or proof as to whether C, etc. performed the obligation to deliver the leased object or performed the obligation to provide the leased object, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s obligation to return the leased deposit was delayed performance. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages on this part is without merit.