1. Of the buildings listed in paragraph 1 of the attached list from the Plaintiff, the Defendant indicated in the attached list Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 1.

1. Indication of claims: To describe the grounds for claims in attached Form and the changed grounds for claims;

2. Judgment without holding any pleadings: Articles 208 (3) 1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Where both parties’ obligations are simultaneously performed in a part bilateral contract to which partial dismissal is made, even if the fulfillment period for one party’s obligations arrives, the parties are not liable for the delay of performance even if the other party’s obligations are not performed until the other party’s obligations are performed. Such effect does not necessarily result in the claimant’s exercise of the right of defense for simultaneous performance.

(Supreme Court Decision 97Da54604, 54611 Decided March 13, 1998). Even in the case of the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, insofar as there is no assertion that the Defendant is liable for delay in the payment of the lease deposit, as long as there is no assertion that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the delivery obligation, and that the obligation of delivery of the lease deposit, among the buildings listed in the attached Table No. 1 of the attached Table No. 2, connected in sequence No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1, connected in sequence No. 52.84 square meters in the ship “A” and the obligation of the Defendant to return the lease deposit to the

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion seeking the payment of damages for delay from June 1, 2019 to the date of full payment for the lease deposit of KRW 65 million is without merit.