The defendant shall deliver the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff. The costs of lawsuit due to the main lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The Plaintiff, on December 30, 2015, leased the entire 1st floor building located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant with a deposit of KRW 25 million, monthly rent of KRW 3 million, and the term of lease from December 22, 2015 to December 22, 2017, without dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff operated a marinat with the trade name “D” from the instant building with the payment of the said deposit to the Plaintiff, and thereafter the lease contract of the instant building was explicitly renewed on a yearly basis, and on June 111, 2020, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to deliver the instant building by December 22, 2020.

According to the above facts, the lease of this case was terminated due to the expiration of the lease term on December 22, 2020.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the building of this case to the plaintiff, except in special circumstances.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is liable for damages to the defendant pursuant to Article 10 (3) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act by impeding the collection of the defendant's premium without any justifiable reason, and that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for the name of the building of this case.

In this regard, the duty to return the leased object arises upon the termination of the lease contract, but the duty to compensate for damages due to the interruption of the lessor’s right to recover the premium is a violation of the duty to protect the opportunity to recover the premium under the Protection of the Lease of Commercial Building Act. Therefore, both obligations are arising from a separate cause, not only the same legal requirement, but also from a fair point of view, and there is no simultaneous performance relationship because it is difficult to recognize the relationship of performance with each other (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Da242727, Jul. 10, 2019).