1. At the same time, the defendant delivered the apartment as stated in the attached list from the plaintiff, and at the same time, 16.0 million won to the plaintiff.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. On April 30, 2014, the Plaintiff leased an apartment specified in the attached list from the Defendant (hereinafter “instant apartment”) on the basis of the lease deposit with the term of May 30, 2016, with the lease deposit of KRW 165 million up to May 30, 2016. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit of KRW 165 million to the Plaintiff to the Hanman on May 2014, and the occupancy of the instant apartment, and the fact that the lease contract relationship on the instant apartment was terminated on May 2016 as the expiration of the period of lower patrol on May 2016, may be recognized by adding to the entire pleadings, or by adding to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant is obligated to return the instant apartment from the Plaintiff, as well as to the Plaintiff the lease deposit of KRW 165 million to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. On this ground, the defendant asserts that it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim as shown in the attached Form. However, even if the defendant's claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case was based on various circumstances that the defendant is in doubt, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case constitutes an abuse of right, or it cannot be deemed that the defendant's claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case constitutes an abuse of right or violates the principle of trust and good faith. Moreover

2. According to the above conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case is legitimate, which seeks the fulfillment of the conditional performance obligations recognized as above. Thus, it is accepted as it is.