1. The defendant's delivery from the plaintiff of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Category D at the same time 86,412,904 won to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff acquired from E the business of “F” in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C shopping mall D (hereinafter “instant shopping mall”) at the premium of KRW 50 million.

B. On May 8, 2015, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the instant commercial building with the terms of KRW 100 million, KRW 3.3 million per month, and the term of lease from May 8, 2015 to May 7, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the same day.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant extended the term of the instant lease agreement by August 31, 2018.

C. On August 31, 2018, the Plaintiff sent the key to the instant commercial building to the neighboring licensed real estate agent office and notified the Defendant of his/her finding the key.

On the other hand, the plaintiff did not remove facilities or recover equipment for the business of "F" in the commercial building of this case until now.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 14, Eul 3, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim for refund of deposit for lease

A. According to the facts found in the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease contract was terminated on August 31, 2018, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to refund the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. The summary of the Defendant’s argument 1) is as follows: (a) the Plaintiff did not pay to the Defendant the rent from May 8, 2018 to August 31, 2018; and (b) the amount should be deducted from the deposit. ② The Plaintiff cannot be said to have delivered the instant commercial building because the Plaintiff neglected the equipment without removing the facility for business, and thus, did not deliver the instant commercial building. Therefore, the Defendant’s duty to return the deposit is in a concurrent performance relationship with the Plaintiff’s duty to deliver the instant commercial building. (b) As to the Plaintiff’s claim for mutual aid, the fact that the Plaintiff did not pay the rent to the Defendant from May 8, 2018 to August 31, 2018 is a dispute between the parties.