The defendant shall pay 60,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

1/20 out of the costs of lawsuit.

Facts of recognition

On October 14, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease KRW 60 million from November 11, 2017 to November 10, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

On November 11, 2017, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the lease deposit amount of KRW 60 million and received the instant house.

On September 4, 2019, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant that the lease contract will not be renewed.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the facts of the above recognition as to the grounds for the claim as a whole of the pleadings, since the lease contract of this case has expired after the expiry of the period, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000, barring any special circumstances.

Although the Plaintiff also claimed for the payment of damages for delay for the above lease deposit against the Defendant, the obligation of the Defendant to return the lease deposit and the obligation of the Plaintiff to deliver the house of this case are in simultaneous performance relations, and there is no delay of performance while there is a defense of simultaneous performance. Therefore, in this case where there is no assertion or proof that the Plaintiff transferred the house of this case, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s obligation to return the lease deposit has reached a delay

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da54604, 54611 delivered on March 13, 1998). Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay on the above lease deposit is without merit.

The defendant's assertion argues that since the plaintiff did not notify the defendant of the rejection of renewal one month prior to the expiration of the lease term, the lease contract of this case has not been renewed for two years pursuant to Article 6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, so the plaintiff's claim of this case is groundless.

However, if any,