2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On August 25, 2016, B leased D (hereinafter “instant store”) of the seller interest in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant owned by the Defendant, with the lease deposit of KRW 29 million, monthly rent of KRW 710,000,000, and the lease period of KRW 1 year.

B. On October 11, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) on the claim for the return of the lease deposit (hereinafter “the claim for return of the lease deposit”) against the Defendant as the title of execution against Gwangju District Court 2015Gadan8418, which filed against B, and the amount of the claim is KRW 32,818,723, and on October 14, 2016, the court issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the Defendant. The above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on October 14, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, on August 31, 2016, prior to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant order of seizure and collection, B transferred the instant claim for return of the leased deposit to E, and E sent a notice to the effect that the Plaintiff was transferred KRW 29 million to B with a copy of the transfer contract between B and E on the instant claim for return of the leased deposit in its name, along with a copy of the transfer contract between B and E, and that such notice was delivered to the Defendant on September 8, 2016.

E later sent a written notification of the same contents as re-paid by content-certified mail, which reaches the Defendant on October 13, 2016.

(hereinafter the above E’s notice of assignment of claims is referred to as “the instant notice of assignment of claims”).

In regard to KRW 15,231,494, the Defendant, upon the expiration of the lease agreement with B upon the expiration of the lease agreement, overlaps with the instant notice of assignment of claims and the Plaintiff’s seizure and collection order, and on the grounds that the effect of the assignment of claims cannot be determined against anyone who is not the transferor but the assignee, as the assignee is not the transferor.