1. The defendant shall pay 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Judgment by public notice of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Some dismissed parts of the Plaintiff claimed 30,000,000 won for lease deposit and damages for delay. However, the obligation to return the lease deposit and the obligation to deliver the leased object upon the termination of the lease agreement is in simultaneous performance relationship. In the case where both parties’ obligations are in simultaneous performance relationship, even if one party’s obligation comes in a bilateral contract, it is not liable for delay of performance even if one party’s obligation is not performed until the other party’s obligation is performed. Such effect does not necessarily result in a claimant who is not liable for delay of performance that does not necessarily exercise the right to defense of simultaneous performance (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da54604, 54611, Mar. 13, 1998). The Plaintiff delivered the above real estate to the Defendant subject to the lease agreement.

There is no assertion as to the fact that the duty of delivery was performed or the duty of delivery was performed, so it cannot be said that the obligation of the defendant to return the lease deposit is in a state of delay of performance.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above damages for delay is groundless.