양수금
1. Defendant C delivers to Defendant B the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and Defendant C is above Defendant B.
1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s cause of claim (1) around April 12, 2008: (a) Defendant C entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B on real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with regard to KRW 78 million; and (b) from April 29, 2008 to April 28, 2010; and (c) occupied and used the instant real estate after paying the deposit to Defendant B around that time; (b) the said lease agreement between the Defendants was renewed once, and terminated on April 28, 2012; (c) Defendant C transferred the said deposit to the Plaintiff on May 7, 2012; and (d) the transfer of the claim was notified to Defendant B; or (e) there is no dispute between the parties; or (e) the purport of the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff can be acknowledged to have been delivered, barring any special reason to the contrary, as a whole, the said real estate is to be delivered to the Plaintiff.
2. As to the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C did not have any obligation or obligation with the Plaintiff. However, Defendant C asserts that in order to avoid seizure and collection of claims by other creditors, a claim to return a security deposit for convenience was transferred to the Plaintiff or a claim to return a security deposit was transferred to the Plaintiff. Thus, Defendant C’s agreement to acquire a security deposit on May 7, 2012 between the Plaintiff and Defendant C should be invalid or revoked.
The following facts can be found in full view of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 8, 12, 16, and 17: (i) the plaintiff remitted to the defendant C via Doin D or E KRW 23,057,00 on March 30, 201, and September 2, 201, respectively; and (ii) the defendant C jointly issued two promissory notes with F on September 30, 201 and May 7, 201 with the plaintiff, respectively.