1. The defendant shall deliver the building stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time, and at the same time, KRW 175,00,000 to the plaintiff.

1. On October 6, 2016, the Plaintiff leased an apartment building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment building”) from the Defendant with the lease deposit of KRW 175 million, and the period from October 20, 2016 to October 19, 2018. However, the foregoing lease agreement can be acknowledged in full view of each of the arguments as follows: (a) there is no dispute between the parties, or the fact that the lease agreement has expired due to the Plaintiff’s notification of the intention to refuse the renewal of the lease; and (b) there is no dispute between the parties; or (c) the purport of the entire argument as stated in subparagraphs A and 6 (including the serial number). According to the above recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 175 million to the Plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

2. The defendant's simultaneous performance defense that the plaintiff did not deliver the apartment of this case to the defendant is without dispute between the parties. Since the defendant's obligation to return the lease deposit of 175 million won and the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the apartment of this case are concurrent performance relation, the defendant's simultaneous performance defense is justified.

3. If so, the defendant is at the same time obligated to deliver the apartment of this case from the plaintiff, and at the same time pay 175 million won to the plaintiff the lease deposit. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.