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

A. On February 29, 2016, the Plaintiff and C drafted a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement (No. 120 of February 29, 2016, No. 2016, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) stating that “C shall repay KRW 77,212,00 by February 29, 2016.”

B. After that, on April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the claim to return KRW 58,920,010, out of the lease deposit against C to the Defendant on the basis of the Notarial Deed (U.S. District Court Branch Branch 2017TTTT 2017TT 52025, hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”), and the instant claim seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant, the garnishee, as of May 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 19, 2015, the Plaintiff’s assertion C determined the first floor of the E-ground building (hereinafter “instant building”) in the name of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, as KRW 100,000,000, from the Defendant’s wife (hereinafter “instant lease”). The actual party to the instant lease agreement is not D.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to return the lease deposit of this case to C. Thus, according to the seizure and collection order of this case, the plaintiff is liable to pay 30,000,100 won out of the collection deposit of this case and delay damages.

B. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 2 and 4 of the judgment, the fact that D entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant on September 19, 2015 with respect to the instant building. However, the above facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are that C entered into the instant lease agreement in the name of D, namely, that C has the right to return the instant lease deposit, as the substantial party to the instant lease agreement.