1. The defendant shall receive from the plaintiff a multi-family house of 37.76 square meters among the real estate listed in the attached list.

1. On January 25, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on the lease deposit with the term of KRW 50,000,000, and the term of February 29, 2012 to February 28, 2014, on the premise that the Defendant and the Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant for the lease deposit, or that the Defendant paid KRW 50,00,000,00 to the said lease deposit with the term of February 29, 2012, may be acknowledged by taking into account the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or that the Defendant paid KRW 1 and 2, as a whole, the purport of the entire pleadings.

According to the above facts, the above lease agreement was terminated on February 28, 2014, and the lessor’s duty to return the lease deposit and the lessee’s duty to deliver the leased object after the termination of the lease relationship with the simultaneous performance. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to return the above lease deposit to the Plaintiff at the same time as the transfer of the instant house from the Plaintiff.

2. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the purport that since the plaintiff's fungi occurring in the ceiling and wall, etc. in the house due to the plaintiff's fault in the house of this case while living in the house of this case, and the defect repair cost therefrom requires KRW 10,00,00,00, the defect repair cost should be deducted from the above lease deposit. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above only the entries in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the images in the evidence Nos. 1 to 9 of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently, the defendant

Although the defendant asserts that the new tenant was unable to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff due to his failure to make the new tenant, the above circumstance alone makes it impossible to refuse the payment of the lease deposit to the plaintiff, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition and remainder.