1. The defendant would pay 40,000,000 won to the plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the Category D of the building in Kimhae-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 29, 2013, the Plaintiff leased the Building D (hereinafter “instant building”) of the Kimhae-si Building D (hereinafter “instant building”) from E to June 28, 2015, with the lease deposit of KRW 40,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 70,000, and the period of KRW 70,000, June 28, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On March 2, 2015, the ownership transfer registration of the instant building was completed in F. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed around the expiration date, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant building on December 1, 2015.

C. The instant lease agreement continued through an implied renewal even after the Defendant acquired ownership on the instant building, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement on May 2018.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleading

2. Since the instant building is a residential building, the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement was succeeded to the ownership of the instant building pursuant to Article 3(4) of the Housing Lease Protection Act, thereby succeeding to the Defendant via F from E, the initial lessor.

In addition, while the instant lease contract was maintained through an implied renewal, the Plaintiff, a lessee, was notified of termination around May 2018 to the Defendant, the lessor, and was terminated on August 2018.

Meanwhile, in the event that a lease contract is terminated, the lessor’s duty to return the lease deposit and the lessee’s duty to deliver the building simultaneously is related to the simultaneous performance. As such, the Defendant is obliged to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff at the same time as the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff.

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