1. The defendant shall deliver the real estate stated in the attached list from the plaintiff to the plaintiff at the same time. 90,000,000 won shall be applied to the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On January 23, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between C and C on behalf of the Defendant, who was the owner of the instant house listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant house”) with the lease deposit amounting to KRW 90,000,000, and the lease term was from January 23, 2017 to January 22, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). At that time, the Plaintiff paid the said lease deposit to the Defendant.

On November 22, 2018, the Plaintiff notified that he/she had no intention to renew the instant lease agreement, and requested the refund of deposit for lease. However, the Plaintiff was unable to refund the deposit for lease and continued to reside in the instant real estate even after the expiration of the instant lease agreement.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the lease agreement of this case was lawfully terminated by the plaintiff's notice of termination. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to return the lease deposit to the plaintiff KRW 90,000,000, barring any special circumstance.

However, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request until the delivery of the house of this case from the plaintiff.

Since the fact that the Plaintiff occupied the instant house does not conflict between the parties, the Plaintiff is obligated to deliver the instant house to the Defendant.

The defendant's obligation to pay the above deposit is related to the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the above house simultaneously, so the defendant's above defense is reasonable.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff at the same time with the delivery of the instant house from the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff also sought for the payment of damages for delay for the lease deposit, but there is no evidence to deem that the plaintiff either performed the duty of delivery of the house of this case or provided the performance thereof.