2. The defendant B is the defendant.

A. On April 9, 2010, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with Defendant B, setting the lease deposit of KRW 70 million and KRW 24 months from the date of delivery of the lease term (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”) with respect to the real estate indicated in the attached real estate (hereinafter “instant real estate”), and received the instant real estate from Defendant B by paying KRW 70 million for the lease deposit to Defendant B at that end.

B. On June 9, 2011, Defendant A borrowed at a rate of 12.1% and at a rate of 24% per annum pursuant to a loan transaction agreement from the Plaintiff, and transferred to the Plaintiff the right to refund the instant lease deposit amount of KRW 70 million against Defendant B as security, and on June 13, 2011, Defendant A sent the said notice of assignment to Defendant B, and the said notice of assignment reaches Defendant B at business.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, and Gap evidence 3-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. The obligee claiming against Defendant A may exercise the obligor’s right on behalf of the obligor in order to preserve the obligor’s claim, and the obligee’s right of subrogation is closely related to the obligee’s right to preserve and the obligor’s right to exercise on behalf of the obligor is at risk of not being able to obtain the complete satisfaction of the obligee’s claim unless the obligee exercises his/her right by subrogation of the obligor’s right, and it is necessary to ensure that the exercise of the obligee’s right by subrogation of the obligor’s right is valid and unreasonable, barring special circumstances, such as the obligor’