1. The defendant shall deliver real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time. 50,000,000 won shall be applied to the plaintiff.

1. On March 5, 2008, the Plaintiff leased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from the Defendant from the Defendant during the period from March 5, 2008 to March 21, 2010 with a deposit deposit of KRW 50,00,000, and the lease term of KRW 50,000 from March 22, 2008 to March 21, 2010 (hereinafter “instant lease”). The Plaintiff occupied and used the instant real estate by receiving delivery from the Defendant after paying the full deposit to the Defendant around that time.

After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have implicitly renewed the instant lease agreement, and the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit claiming the return of the deposit, and the duplicate of the instant complaint stating the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent was served on the Defendant on September 4, 2014.

The plaintiff is currently residing in the real estate of this case.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant regarding the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim and claimed the return of the deposit against the Defendant is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted the relevant legal effect on the premise of the termination of the lease between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which is interpreted as including the intent to terminate the said contract even if the lease

Therefore, on December 4, 2014, when a copy of the complaint of this case, including the Plaintiff’s expression of intent to terminate the instant lease agreement, was served on the Defendant, the termination of the lease of this case became effective on the same day.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return 50,000,000 won to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

3. The defendant's defense asserts that "the plaintiff's continued possession and use of the real estate of this case without delivering it to the defendant" is improper to file the lawsuit of this case.

However, the above argument seems to include the defense of simultaneous performance, and at the time of termination of the lease, the lessee.