1. The defendant shall receive KRW 500,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 8, 2008 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”), and the Defendant is a person who was dismissed on June 23, 2015 from office as the former representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”).

B. On December 20, 201, the Plaintiff: (a) made the Plaintiff enter into a lease agreement with the Defendant and the lease deposit amount of KRW 500,000; (b) from December 20, 2011 to December 24, 201; and (c) handed over the instant building to the Defendant.

C. On July 31, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the delivery of the instant building by August 10, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 5 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the facts of the above recognition on the part demanding the delivery of the instant building, the instant lease agreement was renewed on December 20, 2013, and it was lawfully terminated on July 31, 2015 and around January 31, 2016, six months after the Plaintiff’s notice of termination, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to deliver the instant building to the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim before being paid KRW 500,000 as lease deposit and office building cost of KRW 6,330,000.

On the other hand, the defendant's duty to deliver the building of this case and the plaintiff's duty to pay office-building expenses (under the evidence No. B or Eul evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the expenses for the partition are to be borne by the defendant, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff is liable to pay the expenses) are in a simultaneous performance relationship. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant was unable to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 500,000. Therefore, the Defendant’s duty to deliver the instant building and the Plaintiff’s duty to return the lease deposit are in simultaneous performance

B. The plaintiff of the part claiming restitution costs and management costs is the defendant's restitution costs.