1. The Defendants jointly share the delivery of the Category D among the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

The Defendants are co-owners of each 1/2 share of the attached Table No. D (hereinafter “instant housing”) among the real estate listed in the attached Table.

On June 11, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant house with the respective period of two years and KRW 135 million as the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the said lease deposit to the Defendants on the same day. Around that time, the Plaintiff received delivery of the instant house from the Defendants.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument of the instant lease agreement was terminated upon the lapse of June 11, 2018. Meanwhile, the joint lessor’s obligation to return the lease deposit is an indivisible obligation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da205073, May 30, 2017). The Defendants, as joint lessors, are jointly obligated to jointly return the lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 135 million.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff also claimed damages for delay after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case on the lease deposit, but there is a relationship between the lessee’s duty to return the leased object and the lessor’s duty to return the leased object arising when the lease contract is terminated. However, there is no assertion or proof that the Plaintiff either delivered the leased object to the Defendants or provided the leased object.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the obligation of the Defendants to return the lease deposit was omitted due to the delayed performance, so the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay is without merit.

The defendants asserted simultaneous performance to the effect that the plaintiff did not deliver the housing of this case and did not request other tenants due to the plaintiff's failure to inform other tenants of the password, and thus cannot comply with the plaintiff's claim for return of deposit. As seen above, the plaintiff's duty to deliver the housing of this case and the duty to return the lease deposit of the defendants.