Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(2) The plaintiff is the cause of the claim in this case. The defendant borrowed 5,00,000 won from the above deposit 5,50,000,000 won which the defendant received from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2. The defendant directly returned the above amount of 5,00,000,000 won to the non-party 2 at the expiration of the whole tax period to the non-party 2. The plaintiff raised an objection by asserting that he received the refund claim of 5,00,000 won from the non-party 2 on December 29, 1980 against the defendant.

(3) Therefore, in full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the contents of Nos. 7 (Summary Order) and No. 4 (Notice) without dispute over the establishment and the defendant's acceptance, the non-party 2 paid 5,000,000 won out of the apartment pre-sale deposit for the non-party 1 on April 6, 1980 to the defendant on behalf of the non-party 1, and the non-party 2 paid 5,000,000 won on behalf of the defendant with the consent of the non-party 1 and the defendant on the same day, the non-party 2 agreed to receive 5,00,000 won directly from the defendant upon the completion of the above pre-sale period with the consent of the defendant, and on December 29, 1980, the plaintiff received the above 5,000,000 won from the non-party 2 to the defendant and notified the defendant of the above fact by mail.

On July 9, 1980, the defendant served the creditor with respect to 2,40,00 won from the Seoul District Court for the return of the deposit for the apartment house 1 to 50 won, and the plaintiff again served the creditor with respect to 958,80 won out of the deposit for the return of the deposit for the lease on the same day on the non-party 4 and the debtor's provisional seizure order for the claim 1 to 60% of the above amount shall be excluded from the above amount to be refunded, and the amount of 3,358,80 won should be deducted from the above amount to 60% of the deposit for the payment of the deposit for the lease on the non-party 1 to 50% of the deposit for the lease on the non-party 1 to 60% of the deposit for the lease on the non-party 1 to 40% of the deposit for the lease on the non-party 1 to 40% of the deposit for the above amount to be refunded to 60% of the deposit for the non-party 1 to 60.

(A) First, with respect to the relationship between the provisional seizure and the assignment of claims to the defendant, the transferee of the claims may oppose the debtor without notification or consent (hereinafter referred to as notification of the fixed date) with the above provisional seizure certificate where the claims were transferred, but it cannot be set up against any third party other than the debtor without notification of the fixed date. Thus, with respect to the assignment of claims between the third party other than the debtor and the transferee of the claims, the ownership of the claims shall be determined by the prior notification of the fixed date and the transferee of the claims who notified the above fixed date shall not be recognized as the genuine transferee of the claims. This legal principle applies to the assignment of claims to the defendant 80-1 of the above provisional seizure order, which was delivered by the court of first instance to the defendant, within the scope of 0-1 of the above provisional seizure order, and it is still possible to recognize the defendant as the assignee of the above provisional seizure order from 0-1 to 80-1 of the above fixed date. It is also true that the above provisional seizure order was served to the defendant 90-1 of the above provisional seizure order.

Therefore, the Plaintiff may set up against the Defendant, the obligor, only within the limit of KRW 2,141,200, which remains after deducting KRW 3,358,80,000, which is the amount of the above provisional seizure claim, from the claim to return the deposit amount of KRW 5,50,00 against the Defendant of Nonparty 1.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) apartment management expenses to be deducted from the deposit; (b) the telephone fee of Nonparty 1; (c) the urban gas fee of Nonparty 2; (d) the amount of damages for delay against the shortage of rent 1; (e) Nonparty 2; (e) Nonparty 1 and 5, respectively; (e) the Plaintiff offered the apartment entrance of this case, which was already acquired from Nonparty 1 to 3; and (e) notified the Plaintiff that the balance of the deposit as of the above date would be paid to the Plaintiff as the transferee; (e) it is clear that the Plaintiff would have refused to receive the balance of the deposit; (e) Nonparty 1 and the amount of damages for delay 10; and (e) the amount claimed by the Defendant for the non-party 1 and the amount of damages for delay 10 to 3, 1981; and (e) the amount claimed by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 should be deducted from the amount of the deposit for arrears 1 and 98, respectively.

(4) Next, the defendant raised that the plaintiff had the key to correct the entrance door of the apartment building and did not order the apartment building to be rejected until the time when the plaintiff was ordered to order it. Thus, the defendant's defense that the defendant's defense was justifiable since the non-party 1, who was the previous tenant of the apartment building, was moving to the non-party 2 while leaving the building in question after the expiration of the lease period, transferred the entrance key to the non-party 2, and corrected the entrance, and the plaintiff did not deliver the key to the defendant so far, since there is no dispute between the parties, the possession of the apartment building is the plaintiff. The plaintiff's obligation to name the apartment building and the obligation to return the deposit money to the plaintiff is related to the simultaneous performance of the obligation to return the deposit money to the plaintiff.

(5) Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above amount of KRW 1,621,147 to the plaintiff at the same time with the order of the plaintiff's apartment in his possession. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case is justified within the above scope of recognition and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit. The judgment of the court below is unfair, but only the defendant appealed less than the above amount, and it cannot change the judgment below against the defendant in this case, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Yoon Sang-ho (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge)