If so, it is confirmed that D’s claim for payment of deposit amounting to KRW 60,00,000 deposited by the Suwon District Court No. 563 in 2016 between the Plaintiff and Defendant B was the Plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Fact 1) The Plaintiff is the E-House, 103 Dong 909 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

As to F, the owner at the time of February 12, 2014; F, the lease deposit of KRW 15 million; the term of lease of KRW 15 million; from March 21, 2014 to March 20, 2016, a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) is concluded (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) Defendant C succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement by purchasing the instant apartment from F and acquiring the ownership thereof. (2) In order to preserve the said loan claim, Defendant B, a lessor of the instant lease agreement, was appointed as the debtor, and Defendant D, the lessor of the instant lease agreement, as the third debtor, and was decided to provisionally seize the claim amounting to KRW 60 million, out of the refund claim of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.

3) Accordingly, on January 13, 2016, the Plaintiff and Defendant B, among the Plaintiff and Defendant B, cannot be identified as the subject of the lease deposit claim under the instant lease agreement. As such, on the ground that the provisional seizure of the claim was effected, the Plaintiff and Defendant B deposited the lease deposit with the Defendant as the principal deposit, and deposited the deposit for repayment and enforcement of KRW 60 million out of the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

(4) At the time of the instant lease agreement, the Plaintiff directly transferred KRW 25 million out of the lease deposit from the Plaintiff’s bank account to the bank account of lessorF on March 21, 2014, and paid KRW 70 million by receiving a lease loan from the bank.