2. Defendant.

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

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Demand against the defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation;

A. There is no dispute between the parties to the determination on the cause of the claim, or according to the overall purport of the entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the Defendants entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff on November 24, 2014 regarding the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the term of lease from December 1, 2014 to November 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and Defendant B entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation on February 26, 2015 regarding the assignment of claims for the refund of the said lease deposit, and on the same day, notified the said assignment of claims to the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

According to the above facts, the lease contract between the Defendants was terminated on November 30, 2016, barring any special circumstances, and thus, the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation is obliged to pay KRW 16,998,000 to the Plaintiff, the transferee of the right to return the lease deposit under the instant lease contract, as well as the delivery of the instant real estate from Defendant B.

B. 1) The Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation’s defense against the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation”) argues to the effect that it is impossible to respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since it renewed the instant lease contract. However, even if the lessor and the lessee have made an explicit or implied agreement with respect to the renewal of the lease contract or extension of the contract term after the lessor received the notification of the transfer of the lease deposit claim, such agreement cannot be effective against the assignee of the deposit repayment claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, Apr. 25, 1989). The Defendant Korea Land