Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff is subject to KRW 29,750,000 against the Defendant.

The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, since several seizures and collection orders exist with respect to the claims asserted by the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of evidence B-1 through 5 as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of lease deposit against the Defendant: ① the amount claimed on December 10, 2012; ② the amount claimed on June 26, 2012; ② the amount claimed on June 26, 2012; ② the seizure and collection order of KRW 22,895,283 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012TTTTTT19683); ③ the seizure and collection order of KRW 14,350,302 on May 14, 2013; ④ the collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2013TTTT15382); ④ the seizure and collection order of KRW 36,73,972, and KRW 141381,413, Jul. 22, 2013 (Seoul Central District Court 2013).

The part concerning the claim for the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 29,750,000 shall be considered.

The effect of each of the above seizure and collection orders extends to the claims to return the lease deposit which the Plaintiff seeks by the instant lawsuit. It is clear that the sum of the claims to be seized and the amount of each of the above seizure and collection orders exceeds the claims to return the lease deposit claimed by the Plaintiff. (i.e., KRW 48,79,013, KRW 22,895, KRW 283, KRW 14,350, KRW 302, KRW 3,673,972).

As the Plaintiff loses the eligibility to file this part of the lawsuit, this part of the lawsuit is unlawful.

I examine the part of the claim for payment of KRW 70,000,000 as compensation for accessory purchase right or tort.

Since the above claim cannot be deemed to be identical with the claim to return the lease deposit, which is the seized claim, the basic legal relationship, it cannot be deemed that the above attachment and collection order have effect.

The defendant's defense on this part is without merit.

Judgment on the merits.