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

A. The Plaintiff asserted on May 20, 2015 lent KRW 40 million to C. At the time, D jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of C, and at the same time transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for refund of the lease deposit equivalent to KRW 40 million in total to the Defendant, who was the lessor, on the land E in Jeju, as well as the claim for refund of the lease deposit equivalent to KRW 40 million (hereinafter “instant claim”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff, who received the instant claim from D, KRW 40 million and damages for delay.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 1, May 20, 2015, a notary public, on May 20, 2015, drafted a notarial deed stating that “C borrows KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff on May 20, 2015, and D shall jointly and severally guarantee the above obligation, and if D transfers the instant claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff for the performance of the obligation, the Plaintiff affixed the seal on the said notarial deed to the creditor, and C signed and sealed respectively by the debtor and the agent of D.

However, in light of the developments leading up to the preparation of the above notarial deed, which can be known by the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including those with serial numbers) and the entire purport of oral argument, the content of the above notarial deed alone received a lawful power of representation from C to the defendant as to the transfer of the claim of this case from D at the time.

It is insufficient to recognize the fact that D or C entrusted with the notification authority by the D or C has notified the Defendant of the transfer of the instant claim, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the issue.

2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.