A. The Defendant is a creditor of D (former E) and the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with D on March 22, 2016, setting the amount of KRW 15 million for lease deposit and KRW 9.5 million for monthly rent as KRW 15 million.

B. On May 9, 2018, the Defendant rendered D as the debtor and the Plaintiff as the third debtor, and received the attachment and collection order against D’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against D.

C. According to the above collection order, the Defendant filed an application with the Suwon District Court for the payment order claiming the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 5 million against the Plaintiff and the delayed payment damages therefor with Sungnam Branch Branch 2018 tea184. The Plaintiff did not object to the payment order issued on August 8, 2018 by the court on the ground that the Plaintiff did not object to the payment order issued on August 28, 2018, and the said payment order was finalized on September 12, 2018.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to Article 246(1)6 of the Civil Execution Act, the right to preferential reimbursement is prohibited to the extent of the amount that can be preferentially reimbursed pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Article 10(1)2 and Article 11(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act. In the case of Sungnam-si with the above leased real estate as of the time of seizure and collection order pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Articles 10(1)2 and 11(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, if the above leased real estate falls under the over-concentration control region under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act and falls under the deposit of not more than KRW 8

Therefore, D’s claim for return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff, which had been KRW 15 million at the beginning, constitutes the claim for prohibition of seizure, and thus, the Defendant’s above claim seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff is invalid, and the payment order based thereon is also effective as it is against the claim that cannot be seized and collected. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above payment order should be rejected.

3.