1. The defendant shall receive KRW 95,000,000 from the plaintiff and at the same time real estate stated in the attached Table from the plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim on December 5, 2014, the Plaintiff leased the instant apartment on the attached list (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”) to the Defendant on the condition that on December 5, 2014, the lease was made from December 11, 2014 to December 11, 2016 under the said lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”), and the Plaintiff delivered the instant apartment to the Defendant on December 11, 2014, and the Defendant paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiff. The instant lease contract was terminated by the expiration of the period on December 11, 2018, and the fact that the Defendant occupied the instant apartment until December 11, 2014 does not conflict between the parties.

According to the above facts, since the lease contract of this case was terminated on December 11, 2018, the defendant is obligated to deliver the apartment of this case, which is the object of lease, to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant's assertion that the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for delivery before receiving the compensation and lease deposit for mental damage from the plaintiff first.

B. As seen earlier, on December 11, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 95,00,000 to the Plaintiff according to the instant lease agreement. Since the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 11, 2018, the Plaintiff is obligated to refund KRW 95,00,000 to the Defendant. The Defendant’s duty of delivery is related to the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the said deposit with the repayment obligation.

I would like to say.

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed otherwise between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to perform the obligation to return the deposit in preference to the Defendant’s obligation to deliver the deposit, the Defendant’s prior performance defense is without merit.

However, the defendant's prior performance defense is considered to include the purpose of the simultaneous performance defense, so it is reasonable to seek simultaneous performance.