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

On June 28, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against C with the Jungyang-si District Court 2018 tea756, and issued a payment order to the Plaintiff on June 28, 2018. This payment order was served to C on July 24, 2018, and became final and conclusive August 8, 2018.

On August 28, 2019, the Plaintiff received a claim for KRW 101,811,643 from the above payment order as to the lease deposit return claim against the Defendant under the Jung-gu District Court Decision 2019T, Nam-si Do Apartment and E (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as to the lease deposit return claim against the Defendant under the Namyang-si District Court Decision 2019T, and the above decision became final and conclusive thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the determination of the ground for a claim as to the whole purport of the pleadings, the seizure of claims, and the existence of seized claims in a collection lawsuit based on the collection order, shall be proved by the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476, Jun. 11, 2015). There is no evidence to prove that Eul has a claim to return the lease deposit against the defendant for the apartment of this case.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted that, on April 15, 2016, the Defendant, who was sentenced to punishment, had evaded his/her debt by completing the registration of transfer of ownership on the apartment of this case under the name of F, one of his/her own wife. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim for the collection of this case cannot be accepted.

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