1. The defendant shall pay 24,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

Description of Claim

With respect to a housing lease agreement entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 3, 2016 (one year from the lease term of KRW 24,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 37,000) entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on March 3, 2016, the Plaintiff could not assert the opposing power in the voluntary auction procedure regarding the above real estate that was in progress before the conclusion of the above lease agreement. Ultimately, the Defendant’s obligation to use and benefit from the above lease was omitted in the nonperformance of performance, while the said lease was terminated by the delivery of the copy of the complaint in this case, and sought the return of the lease deposit that was already paid to the Defendant.

Article 208(3)3 and Article 194(1) of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of the Acts apply mutatis mutandis to the case where the plaintiff claims for the delayed payment from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of the full payment of the lease deposit. However, in the case where both obligations are jointly performed, even if the due date of the other party's obligation arrives, the plaintiff is not liable for the delay of performance until the other party's obligation is performed, and such effect does not exercise the right of defense for simultaneous performance.

(Supreme Court Decision 2001Da3764 delivered on July 10, 2001). Regarding the instant case, the obligation to deliver real estate stated in the Plaintiff’s attached list and the obligation to return the lease deposit of this case to the above Defendant are in a simultaneous performance relationship. Since the Plaintiff did not deliver or deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s claim for delay damages is without merit.