2. Defendant B shall list the attached list from Defendant A.

On March 14, 2016, Defendant A leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”) from Defendant B by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, and the lease term of KRW 30,000 from March 31, 2016 to March 30, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). On August 8, 2016, the Plaintiff leased KRW 10,00,000 to Defendant A at an annual interest rate of KRW 27.9% per annum, and the due date of repayment on March 30, 2018, and as security, Defendant A transferred to Defendant B the claim for refund of KRW 15,000,000 out of the lease deposit which Defendant A had had against the instant lease agreement, and was delegated with the authority to notify the transfer thereof, and notified the transfer to Defendant B by mail by content-certified mail on June 27, 2017.

Defendant A did not repay the above loan obligation to the Plaintiff, and the instant lease agreement between the Defendants terminated to the expiration date.

[Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and according to the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 and the purport of the entire argument, the lease contract of this case between the defendants is terminated upon the expiration of the period of validity. Thus, the defendant A is obligated to deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant B upon the plaintiff's request by the plaintiff subrogated to the defendant B as a creditor to return the lease deposit against the defendant Eul. The defendant B is obligated to pay KRW 15,00,000 out of the lease deposit of this case to the plaintiff who acquired the claim to return the lease deposit of this case from the defendant A

Defendant A paid the repayment upon the commencement decision of individual rehabilitation. Defendant A asserted that the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff were to be repaid in 100,000 won per month, but this does not constitute a legitimate defense against the Plaintiff’s claim seeking delivery of the instant real estate. Therefore, Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.