2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 14, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the UN Estec Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Estec”) on the 884-5 Cheong-gu, Pyeongtaek-si, and received KRW 221,441,360 from the UN Estec around that time.

B. On January 20, 2016, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Incheon District Court for the attachment and collection order to transfer the provisional attachment to the provisional attachment under the Incheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Order 2015Hu5581, the amount of KRW 27,280,000, out of the lease deposit refund claims against the Defendant by the United Nations Este, to the Defendant. The said court issued the attachment and collection order to transfer the provisional attachment to the provisional attachment on January 20, 2016, and served the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts that as a collection right holder, the plaintiff sought payment of the above collection amount of KRW 27,280,000 to the defendant.

However, the lease deposit is not only a rent during the lease term, but also a claim for damage incurred by a lessor to the performance of the obligation to deliver the leased property at the time of the termination of the lease. The lease deposit is a security for the lessee’s claim for the remainder on the condition that there is a balance remaining after deducting all the secured obligations, such as the overdue charge or damage claim, when transferring the leased property to the lessor after the termination of the lease. There is no evidence to prove that the lease contract has been terminated between Estec and the Defendant. Rather, according to the evidence No. 1, the lease term stipulated in the above lease contract can only be acknowledged as not yet terminated from October 1, 2013 to September 30, 2023.

Therefore, it is subject to the collection of this case.