1. The Defendant received KRW 13,200,000 from the Plaintiff at the same time, and simultaneously received the payment from the Plaintiff:

(a) the annexed list;

The Plaintiff’s cause of the instant claim is as indicated in the Attached Form “Cause of Claim.” The Plaintiff sought payment of money calculated by the ratio of KRW 300,000 per month, 1/2 of rent and unjust enrichment, as a joint lessor from October 1, 2018 to the delivery date of the building.

In regard to this, the defendant recognized all of the above allegations by the plaintiff, and simultaneously implement the obligation to deliver real estate at the same time with the return of 13,200,000 won from the plaintiff.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is a person who has not returned the above deposit to the defendant.

Therefore, at the same time, the defendant is obligated to receive the above deposit of KRW 13,200,000 from the plaintiff and deliver the real estate of this case which is the object of the lease to the plaintiff, and to pay the money calculated by the rate of KRW 300,000 per month from October 1, 2018 to the completion date of delivery of the above real estate.

The Plaintiff asserted that as co-owner of the instant real estate, the obligation to return the lease deposit is limited to the amount equivalent to 1/2. However, in cases where co-owner of the instant building jointly leases the building and receives the lease deposit, the obligation to return the deposit is an indivisible obligation due to its nature (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da43137, Dec. 8, 1998). Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.