1. The Defendant shall deliver 60.02 square meters of the second floor among the buildings listed in the separate sheet from the Plaintiff, and at the same time, 40,000.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On April 1, 2011, the Plaintiff leased the two-story 60.02 square meters (hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Defendant, among the buildings indicated in the attached Table from the Defendant’s list, with the lease deposit of KRW 40,00,000,00, and with the lease term from April 16, 201 to April 15, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the said lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.

B. At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff received the instant house from the Defendant, and possessed the said house until the date of closing argument in the instant case.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed after the expiration of the lease term, and it is evident in the record that the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant on August 16, 2018, stating the Plaintiff’s declaration that the said lease contract will be terminated. Therefore, the said lease agreement was legally terminated on November 16, 2018, when three months elapsed from August 16, 2018 pursuant to Article 6-2 of the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 40,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's defense of simultaneous performance that the defendant could not respond to the plaintiff's claim from the plaintiff until the plaintiff delivered the house of this case. Thus, since the defendant's obligation to pay the lease deposit is related to the plaintiff's obligation to deliver the house of this case, the defendant's defense is justified.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that the overdue electricity charges of the plaintiff should be deducted from the deposit for lease of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff had the annual electricity charges.

The written evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the Korean power of this Court.