[Evidence Evidence: Defendant B: A without dispute, A1 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings: Defendant C: by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination

A. Even if there is an explicit or implied agreement between a lessor and a lessee with respect to the renewal of a lease contract or extension of the contract term after the lessor received the notification of the transfer of the claim for the repayment of the lease deposit, the effect of such agreement cannot be affected by the transferee of the claim for the

In a case where a creditor intends to exercise a debtor’s right in order to preserve his/her own claim, it is ordinarily a requirement for the debtor’s insolvency, but, in a case where a creditor who has received a claim to refund a lease deposit seeks a pre-performance of a lessee’s house name in order to claim the performance thereof, the lessee’s right to request the pre-performance is not related to the preservation of the claim and the existence of the lessor’

B. (Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, 4260 Decided April 25, 1989).

As seen earlier, Defendant B received 132,00,000 won from the non-party bank under the Plaintiff’s credit guarantee as of August 21, 2017. On August 21, 2017, the insured event occurred due to overdue loans, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 135,680,230 to the non-party bank on November 30, 2017. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money as stipulated in Paragraph (1) of the Disposition.

As seen earlier, the instant real estate lease agreement between the Defendants was terminated on August 21, 2017 due to the expiration of the period of validity of August 21, 2017 (A2), and Defendant B is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to Defendant C.

C. According to the facts of the above recognition by Defendant C, as sought by the Plaintiff, Defendant C, together with Defendant B, shall receive the instant real estate from Defendant B, and at the same time jointly with the Plaintiff, KRW 158,400,000.