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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C has a claim for the refund of deposit against the Defendant by leasing the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and the branch from the Defendant.

The plaintiff, a creditor of C, received a seizure and collection order concerning the claim for the return of the above lease deposit, and the above collection order was served on the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff as the collection obligee.

B. The Plaintiff, as the creditor of C on December 8, 2017, was issued with respect to the amount up to 47,975,342 won out of the lease deposit repayment claim against C as the debtor, and the Defendant as the third debtor, with respect to the amount up to 47,975,342 won among the lease deposit repayment claim against C, as the Seoul Western District Court’s 2017TT 11671, and the fact that the above bond seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on December 11, 2017 is recognized by the respective statements in the evidence No. 1 and 2.

However, in a lawsuit for collection, the burden of proving the existence of the claim for collection is against the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). The above evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that C leased the above real estate from the Defendant. There is no other evidence to acknowledge the existence of the claim for collection.

In this regard, the plaintiff argued that the lease contract (No. 1) submitted by the defendant was forged in collusion with C in order to evade the compulsory execution of the plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this part of the claim.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.