1. At the same time, the Defendant received real estate stated in the attached list “” from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, KRW 90,236,670 to the Plaintiff.

1. On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff leased real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as indicated in the “Attachment List” from the Defendant from August 6, 2015 to August 5, 2017, by setting the period from August 6, 2015, to August 5, 2017, and paid the deposit to the Defendant around that time. The lease contract was renewed once on the same content as the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not notify the renewal of the lease contract before the expiration of the period. The Plaintiff declared the Defendant’s intention of termination of the contract before the expiration of the renewed lease contract and the Defendant’s declaration of intention reached the Defendant is without dispute between the parties. Accordingly, the lease contract on the instant apartment is terminated with the expiration of the lease term on August 6, 2019. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the deposit amount to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

2. As to this, the Defendant’s defense of simultaneous performance that the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim until the delivery of the instant apartment from the Plaintiff was made. Thus, the Plaintiff was in possession of the instant apartment, and the fact that the lease contract on the instant apartment is terminated on August 6, 2019 is recognized as above, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant apartment to the Defendant. Since the Defendant’s obligation to return the deposit is related to the Plaintiff’s simultaneous performance of the obligation to deliver the instant apartment, the Defendant is obligated to pay the deposit to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the said apartment from the Plaintiff.

The defendant's above defense is justified.

The defendant asserts that if the plaintiff damaged the apartment of this case, he shall restore the apartment of this case to its original state or shall deduct the cost of restoration from the deposit for lease. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and the above argument is without merit.