1. The defendant shall be the plaintiff.

A. At the same time, 50,000 won is paid from the Plaintiff, the 1st floor of the building indicated in the attached Table.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on the lease deposit of KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff, and from February 1, 2013 to January 31, 2014, the monthly rent of KRW 9,400,00 (excluding value-added tax) (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with the Plaintiff, and operated a commercial building with the trade name “fishing range range range” in the instant real estate.

B. On November 20, 2013, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a content-certified mail stating that the instant real estate should be ordered by January 31, 2014, the term of the said lease agreement.

C. However, from February 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 9,400,000 per month for seven months from February 1, 2014, which is the day following the expiration date of the above lease term, and has been occupying and using the instant real estate while operating the said commercial building until now.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the request for delivery of a building, the term of the instant lease expires, and the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

However, the defendant asserts that he has the obligation to deliver the above real estate as a simultaneous performance with the return of KRW 50,000,000 and the obligation to deliver the above real estate. Since the defendant's obligation to deliver the above real estate and the obligation to return the plaintiff's lease deposit have the relationship of simultaneous performance, the

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Plaintiff at the same time with the payment of KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

B. According to the judgment on the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent 1, the Defendant did not have any legal ground despite the termination of the instant lease agreement.