1. The defendant delivered "Yansan-si member C apartment and D" from the plaintiff and simultaneously delivered "Yansan-si member C apartment and D" to the plaintiff on August 2008.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1 and all pleadings, on October 6, 2016, the plaintiff leased the apartment as stated in the Disposition No. 1 from the defendant on a fixed period of 280 million won and 200 million won, and around that time, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff paid the defendant a deposit of 280 million won, and the fact that the term of the above lease expires is apparent in fact. Thus, upon the termination of the lease, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff a deposit of 280 million won as the lease deposit at the same time as the transfer of the above apartment from the plaintiff.

[On the other hand, the plaintiff sought the return of the deposit without any burden on the repayment, but when the lease contract is terminated, the duty to deliver the object and the duty to return the deposit are in simultaneous performance relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da45202, Apr. 14, 1992). Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff performed the duty to deliver the object, the plaintiff's claim for this part is rejected. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim is reasonable within the above recognition scope, it is accepted, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit