1. The defendant is paid KRW 400,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, among the first floor of the building listed in the attached Table 1 to the plaintiff.

1. On October 6, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) indicated in the separate sheet No. 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 105, No. 19.73 square meters (hereinafter “the instant store”) among the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 attached hereto owned on October 6, 2014; (b) the lease deposit amount of KRW 400 million; (c) the term of lease from November 1, 2014 to October 31, 2016; and (d) the Defendant operated the instant pharmacy at the instant store; and (c) the Plaintiff and the Defendant decided not to renew the instant lease agreement does not conflict with the parties; or (d) it is recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the separate sheet No. 1 and No. 2.

Therefore, as the instant lease contract was terminated on October 31, 2016 due to the expiration of the period, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

2. Judgment on the defendant's simultaneous performance defense

A. The defendant's defense of simultaneous performance that the plaintiff could not respond to the plaintiff's claim until the return of deposit for lease was made. Thus, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of No. 1-1, 1-2, and 3, it is recognized that the defendant paid to the plaintiff 400 million won of the lease deposit under the lease contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit to the defendant, and the lessee's obligation to return the object is related to the lessor's obligation to return the deposit simultaneously with the lessor'

B. Next, the Defendant entered into a premium contract with a new lessee prior to the expiration of the instant lease contract, but the Plaintiff refused to enter into a lease contract with a new lessee without justifiable grounds, thereby hindering the Defendant’s opportunity to recover the premium, thereby causing damage equivalent to KRW 385 million, which is stipulated in the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act. Thus, the Defendant was against the Plaintiff.