1. The defendant shall pay 62,100,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 12, 2012, the Defendant purchased a house with D land in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City and its ground from C from the same year.

4. The registration of ownership transfer was received on 25. Around that time, C and the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor’s status under a lease agreement that was concluded between C and the Plaintiff with respect to the whole of the instant branch floors as KRW 69 million, and leased the entire branch floor to the Plaintiff up to November 27, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff was returned KRW 6.9 million from the Defendant’s deposit for the lease on a deposit basis.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 4-1, 4-2, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, since the lease contract between the plaintiff and the defendant has expired, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the balance of the deposit (=69 million won - 69 million won).

The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the balance of the above deposit shall be paid at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the delivery of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

However, since a lessor's obligation to return a lease deposit is in a simultaneous performance relationship with a lessee's obligation to return the leased object, the lessor has a right to defense of simultaneous performance. Therefore, the lessor has no obligation to pay damages for delay because it does not fall into delay of the obligation to return the lease deposit even if it is not exercised in reality.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant did not return the deposit money to the plaintiff because he did not cooperate with the plaintiff when he/she intends to lease the above part of the housing ground floor to another.

However, it is not possible to refuse the return of the lease deposit to the plaintiff solely on the grounds alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion