A. (1) The Plaintiff acquired ownership on June 18, 2013 by winning a successful bid for the real estate in the auction procedure for D's real estate in the Dong branch branch of Busan District Court (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) The Defendant is a person who leased the instant real estate from E on May 2, 2012 and operated a innating business.

B. The Defendant’s title (Recommendation of Compromise) against the Plaintiff (1) filed a lawsuit against E to confirm the existence of the right of retention as Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Busan District Court 2013Gahap2008. In the foregoing case, the Plaintiff filed an independent party intervention by asserting that “the Defendant did not have a right of retention on the instant building” as the head of 2013Gahap2596.

(2) In the foregoing case, August 26, 2013, the Intervenor of the Independent Party (Plaintiff) paid KRW 50 million to the Defendant by October 31, 2013. If the payment is not made by the payment date, the decision of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case”) with the purport that “in addition to the damages for delay of 20% per annum shall be paid by the said payment date,” was made, and the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case became final and conclusive.

C. (1) On September 30, 2013, the Plaintiff deposited the amount of KRW 50 million with the Busan District Court Branch Branch Decision No. 1867, No. 1867, which decided to recommend the settlement of this case, with the Defendant as the principal deposit on September 30, 2013.

(2) On November 7, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for a compulsory auction of the instant real estate with the title of execution for the instant ruling of recommending reconciliation with the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch, and the said court rendered a decision of compulsory auction to F on November 8, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant’s claim against the Plaintiff according to the decision on the recommendation for reconciliation of this case has ceased to exist as repayment deposit on September 30, 2013.