1. The defendant would pay KRW 200 million to the plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the building stated in the attached list from the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 19, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C on the lease deposit amount of KRW 200 million, and the lease deposit amount of KRW 24 million from November 24, 2015 to November 23, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and received delivery of the instant building after paying deposit amount of KRW 200 million to C.

B. The Defendant purchased the instant building from C on April 7, 2017, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 10, 2017.

C. The instant lease agreement was terminated upon the expiration of its validity.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above findings of the determination on the cause of the claim, since the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period, the defendant who succeeded to the status of the lessor under the lease contract of this case is obligated to return the lease deposit KRW 200,000 to the plaintiff,

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant’s simultaneous performance defense to the effect that the deposit cannot be refunded to the Plaintiff until the instant building is delivered from the Plaintiff.

In the event that a lease contract is terminated, the lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit and the lessee’s obligation to return the leased object are in the relationship of simultaneous performance. However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not deliver the instant building to the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to return the lease deposit KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of the instant building from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is well-grounded, and the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay of KRW 200 million is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and therefore, it is reasonable to accept it, and the remaining claims are justified.