2. Defendant B is the above building from Defendant C.

A. On January 20, 201, Defendant C leased a building listed in the attached Table (hereinafter “instant apartment”) from D as of January 20, 201, as of KRW 30,000,000, the rent of KRW 1,300,000, and the period of February 21, 2013.

B. Defendant C and D have renewed the said lease agreement several times since February 22, 2013, and finally, on February 22, 2015, Defendant C and D renewed the said lease agreement and changed the lessee’s name in the name of E, who is a kind of child.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff had a claim of KRW 64,350,000 against Defendant C. However, on December 27, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant C to transfer KRW 50,000,000, which Defendant C had against Defendant C to secure the above claim, and notified Defendant C of the transfer to D on the same day upon delegation by Defendant C, and the notification reached D on the 28th of the same month.

D A Around January 22, 2015, the Defendant B succeeded to his debt.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3 through 7, Eul evidence 1 (including provisional number), the purport of whole pleadings]

2. (1) Determination: (a) Even if a lessor and a lessee have made an explicit or implied agreement with regard to the renewal of a lease agreement or extension of the contract period after being notified of the transfer of the claim for return of the lease deposit, the effect of such agreement cannot be affected by the assignee of the claim for return of the deposit; and (b) in order for the obligee to exercise the obligor’s right to preserve his/her own claim, it would normally require the obligor’s insolvency. However, in a case where the obligee who acquired the claim for return of the lease deposit seeks a pre-performance of the lessee’s housing name in order to claim the performance of the claim, the obligee is not in a relationship with the preservation of the claim and the existence of the lessor’