1. The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff the real estate stated in the attached list.

2. The Defendant from November 23, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 15, 2016, the Plaintiff leased the instant real estate to the Defendant with the term “5,000,000 won for lease deposit, 550,000 won for monthly rent, and by July 23, 2017,” respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”) B.

The instant lease agreement was terminated on July 23, 2017 upon expiration of the period of validity.

C. On August 3, 2017, the Plaintiff returned KRW 4,000,000, out of KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant.

The defendant has occupied the real estate of this case until now.

However, on August 3, 2017, the Defendant did not use or benefit from the instant real estate to another place from the instant real estate.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination on a claim for damages

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, even after the termination of the instant lease agreement, the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the rent from August 2017 to the delivery date of the instant real estate.

B. Since a lessee’s obligation to return the leased object and the lessor’s obligation to return the remainder after deducting the lessor’s default due to the termination of the lease agreement, if the lessee continuously occupied the leased building by exercising his/her right of defense of simultaneous performance even after the termination of the lease agreement, the lessor performed the duty to return the deposit to the lessee.

Inasmuch as a lessee does not lose his/her right to defense of simultaneous performance due to such reasons as the lessee’s duty to specify the building is omitted due to the provision of performance or actual performance, possession of the lessee’s building cannot be deemed an illegal possession, and therefore, the lessee has no liability to compensate for such damage.

(See Supreme Court Decision 98Da6497 delivered on May 29, 1998). Meanwhile, Article 460 of the Civil Act ought to be in accordance with the substance of performance, namely, providing actual performance.

(b).