A. H was loaned from the Defendants at the interest rate of 27.9% per annum in the amount of KRW 18 million each by 6 million on October 31, 2016.

B. In carrying out a joint loan as above, the Defendants entered into a contract with H to acquire the above lease deposit deposit claim amounting to KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff, lessee, and the Government of the object of lease with the second floor (J-ho), lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million, and lease deposit of KRW 40 million from October 31, 2015 to October 30, 2017.

C. On November 4, 2016, the Defendants sent the notice of assignment of the said assignment of claims to the Plaintiff and reached the Plaintiff on November 7, 2016.

On November 18, 2016, the Defendant called the Plaintiff on November 18, 2016, and asked the Plaintiff whether to enter into the instant lease agreement and the remainder of the obligation to return the lease deposit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff acknowledged the existence of KRW 40 million for the contract and the obligation to return the lease deposit, but the Plaintiff responded to the purport that there was no separate claim to be received from H, and thus there was no money to be returned.

【Ground for Recognition: Each description of evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4, and 7

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion is irrelevant to the fact that the Plaintiff concluded the instant case lease agreement with H.

In addition, it is necessary to use gambling funds for the purpose of forging the contract for the lease of this case and borrowing money from the defendant.

In the end, the lease contract of this case is forged, and the plaintiff is not only the fact that he received the deposit from H, but also there is no fact that he concluded the lease contract. Therefore, the plaintiff's obligation to take over the defendant of this case does not exist.

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Whether the lease contract of this case is forged or not.