A. On November 12, 2014, Nonparty B: (a) purchased a deposit of KRW 50 million; (b) KRW 750,000,000; and (c) from December 5, 2014 to December 4, 2016, the period of which was determined and leased to the Defendant as the deposit of KRW 50,000,000,000; and (d) Nonparty B’s lease to the Defendant.

B. In order to raise the above lease deposit, the Defendant borrowed KRW 40 million from Samsung Bio-resources Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Bio-resources”) as collateral and set up a pledge (hereinafter “the pledge of this case”) as to KRW 48 million out of the claim for return of the lease deposit against B. On the same day, the Defendant concluded a personal financial credit insurance contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, which covers the Defendant’s failure to pay the principal and interest on the three-dimensional life loans.

C. After that, upon filing an application for commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, on June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff repaid to Samsung Bio-resources the total amount of KRW 41,094,699, such as the above borrowed money and its interest, on behalf of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant acquired the claim for reimbursement equivalent to the above amount of indemnity against the Defendant, and at the same time acquired the instant pledge by subrogation, which was established on the claim for return of lease deposit.

On February 14, 2017, the defendant was exempted from the liability for reimbursement against the plaintiff by the Daejeon District Court 2016,546 ruling.

E. B deposited KRW 33,310,410, as the Daejeon District Court on April 28, 2017, Daejeon District Court deposited KRW 2257, 2017, which was deferred in the reason that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any legitimate authority to receive the deposit for lease on the grounds of the Defendant’s delayed delay (this Court Decision 2016Da8142, 2017Na155).

(hereinafter referred to as the "Deposit of this case"). [The ground for recognition] The fact that no dispute is brought about, and each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8

2. According to the above facts as to the plaintiff's cause of claim, the plaintiff acquired the pledge of this case on behalf of the plaintiff and granted immunity on behalf of the individual rehabilitation creditor pursuant to Article 625 (3) of the same Act.