2. It is confirmed that, between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1, ○○, and ○○○○○, the right to claim the payment of deposit money of KRW 00 is against the Plaintiff.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant Jeong-○, Republic of Korea, Ansan, and Kim Il-○ is borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○, and Defendant ○ is borne by the same Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

Of the deposit money stated in the attached list, it is confirmed that the claim for payment of deposit money from ○○○ source is the plaintiff.

Defendant 1, a lessor, leased the lease deposit to Nonparty 2, ○○○○○○○○○○○○ and Yang○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “leased”) from Nonparty 1, a lessor, and the first floor of the ground building (hereinafter referred to as “instant real estate”). The Plaintiff was transferred the right to return the lease deposit to the said ○○○○○○○○○’s lessor from Defendant 1 to Defendant 1.

However, the lessor deposited the remainder of the lease deposit settled after the termination of the lease with the Plaintiff and the Defendants. Therefore, in order to recover the deposit, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendants that ○○○○○○○○, which corresponds to the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for payment of the deposit.

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits

In order to preserve the national tax claim against ○○ Stock Company, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the claim for the return of the deposit against the lessor of ○○ Stock Company and the third debtor as lessor. However, Defendant Jeong Jong-dong District Court 2015 Ma○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which filed against Defendant Republic of Korea, decided to recommend the release of the seizure of the claim and released the seizure of the claim, and Defendant Republic of Korea’s release of the seizure of the claim. Accordingly, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the lawsuit against the Republic of Korea against the Republic of Korea is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit. However, in the deposit made by the lessor, Defendant Republic of Korea still becomes a deposit, and ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is a party to the lawsuit, and thus, the Plaintiff as the party to the lawsuit

3. Determination on Defendant 1, 1, 2, and 3

Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

4. Determination on Defendant Jeong-○, Korea, Ansan-○, and Kim Il-○

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The instant lease agreement

On September 7, 2012, Defendant Jeong-○, and the ○○○○○○○○, a monthly rent, or a lease contract under which the instant real estate was leased from October 9, 2012 to October 8, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”), entered into between the lessor and the lessor, with the term of “○○○○○,” and the term of the lease from October 9, 2012 to October 8, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the lease of this case”). In the special agreement clause, “The deposit is originally KRW ○○, but it is now KRW ○○, and the remainder of KRW ○○○ shall be paid at KRW ○○, and the monthly rent shall be adjusted from KRW ○○ to KRW ○○○, and the monthly rent shall be adjusted to KRW ○○○.”

In addition, on the same day, the lessor: “The lease deposit for the instant real estate is KRW 00 (including KRW 00,000, which is to pay the remainder after three months from the starting date of business). Of which, ○0 won is the share of KRW 00,000, KRW 00 is the share of KRW 00,000, KRW 00,000, and KRW 200,000,000, KRW 00,000,000, and KRW 00,000, and KRW 0,000,000, KRW 1,000,000, and KRW 20,000 shall be paid to each lessor, and KRW 0,00,000 shall be paid to KRW 0,00,000,000 to KRW 0,00,000,00

2) Payment of the ○○○○○○○○○ Deposit to Defendant Jeong Jong-man

Accordingly, Defendant Jeong-○ paid a deposit to the lessor ( ① ○○○○○○○○ on September 7, 2012 + ② ○○○○○○○ on September 18, 2012 + ③ ○○○ on October 5, 2012), and that the deposit was paid to the lessor.

○○○○ that he received each of the above money to Defendant Jeong-○ only (No. 5-1 to 3).

On the other hand, Defendant ○ did not pay the lease deposit to be paid by himself.

3) Assignment of claims to the plaintiff by the defendant 1, 1,00

On October 10, 2012, the non-party ○○ Co., Ltd. (the representative of the non-party ○○ Co., Ltd.; hereinafter referred to as the "non-party ○○ Co., Ltd.") operated the gas station business in the instant real estate leased. In order to raise funds for the operation of the gas station, the non-party ○ Co., Ltd. borrowed ○○ from the plaintiff on October 10, 201, and the defendant ○ Co.

However, in order to secure the above obligation against the Plaintiff, Defendant 1 agreed to transfer to the Plaintiff the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, Defendant 1, upon request from the lessor, was different from the instant lease contract as seen earlier (the instant lease contract, actually, is a common lessee as Defendant 1, 200, and the KRW ○○○○, which was actually paid out of the agreed lease deposit, is decided to return to Defendant 1, 2000), and the lessee received the lease deposit under the name of Defendant 1, 200, and submitted it to the Plaintiff. Defendant 2 transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the lessor pursuant to this lease contract, and the notification to the lessor reached the lessor on October 12, 2012 with the notice of the above assignment of the claim. Moreover, the lessor prepared a letter of consent to the transfer of the lease deposit deposit by Defendant 1, 200, and attached evidence No. 1, No. 1, 3500.

4) After that, the non-party company failed to repay its loan obligations to the Plaintiff, and on September 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the lessor by ○○ District Court 2013 ○○○○○○○○○○○, demanding the payment of the above lease deposit repayment claim that the Plaintiff acquired by the Plaintiff, and received a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on February 2, 2014, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 2014 (Ga evidence 7 and evidence 4-1, 2).

(v) Deposit of a lessor;

After that, on January 2016, 2016, the lessor deposited the remainder of the lease deposit, which was settled by the ○○ District Court 2016 Geum○○○○○○○○, as the Plaintiff and the Defendants (the reason for the deposit was the mixed deposit of the execution deposit due to the concurrent seizure of the creditor’s non-deposit deposit and the claim to return the lease deposit).

B. Determination

The Plaintiff’s assertion was transferred to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s claim for the refund of deposit from the instant lease agreement. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff’s claim under the premise that the ○○○○○○○○○○ has a claim for the refund of deposit against the ○○○○○○○○○○, which was paid to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the Defendant’s claim under the premise that the ○○○○○○○ has a claim for the refund of deposit (the Plaintiff’s claim was without merit when the ○○○○ transferred the claim for the refund of deposit to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s claim for the refund of deposit to the ○○○○○○○○○○○, which was written out of the aforementioned facts that the ○○○○○○○○○’s claim was based on the above facts.

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Jeong-○, Republic of Korea, Ansan, and Kim Jong-○ is dismissed.