1. The defendant is paid KRW 20,000,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, the first floor of the real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant with regard to the lease deposit of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and the term of lease from September 3, 2012 to September 2, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

B. After paying the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, the Defendant operates a mutual convenience store, which consists of 3 equipped range rangeers at the instant store.

C. On May 8, 2014 and June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the termination of the instant lease agreement and that he/she did not wish to renew the contract.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above findings of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on September 2, 2014 after the expiration of the period of validity.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the store of this case to the plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. As to the determination of simultaneous performance defense, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million from the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the defendant. Since the defendant's obligation to deliver the store of this case and the plaintiff's obligation to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million are in the simultaneous performance relationship, the above defendant's defense is justified.

C. According to the theory of the lawsuit, the defendant is obligated to deliver the instant store at the same time with the payment of the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million from the plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.