2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit.

A. On December 1, 2014, B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) transferred KRW 92,873,042 to the Defendant as the head of B’s representative director C, and notified the Defendant of the above fact on the same day.

B. SP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP”) filed a provisional attachment against the instant claim with the Suwon District Court, under the Suwon District Court Branch 2014Kadan1006666, on December 10, 2014 (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment”), and the said provisional attachment ruling was served on the Defendant on December 15, 2014.

C. Meanwhile, from December 4, 2014, E.S. informed the Defendant from around December 4, 2014 that “The instant assignment of claims is false and likely to be cancelled by fraudulent act, so the transferee of the claim may be held liable for double payment.”

Since then E.S. filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act by asserting that the assignment of claims in this case was a fraudulent act against the Plaintiff as Seoul Southern District Court 2015Gahap10770, and received a favorable judgment from the above court on April 6, 2017.

Accordingly, on May 8, 2017, when the lawsuit of this case is pending, the Defendant rendered a repayment deposit which is based on the creditor’s uncertainty as deposit, and a mixed deposit of execution deposit which is based on the provisional seizure of claim Es.S. on the ground that it cannot be confirmed that the validity of the assignment of claim of this case was valid by the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2670 in 2017, the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 92,873,042.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deposit of this case”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including additional numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that E.S. is E.S.