2. The independent party intervenor's claim is dismissed;

3...

A. On July 21, 2011, with respect to the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Intervenor’s participation, a lease contract was made with respect to the Plaintiff, the Intervenor, the Intervenor, the amount of KRW 120,000,000, and the duration from September 10, 2011 to September 9, 2013, which read as “the lessor, the Defendant, the Intervenor, the amount of KRW 120,000,000,” and the period of the lease contract was amended on August 26, 2011 to “from August 26, 2011 to August 25, 2013.”

hereinafter referred to as "the lease contract of this case" means the lease contract of this case.

(B) Meanwhile, the instant lease contract was renewed more than two years after the expiration of the period, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Intervenor seeking confirmation that the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of KRW 120,000,000 under the instant lease contract was the Plaintiff by Busan District Court 2015Gahap4091, and the said judgment became final and conclusive August 27, 2015 upon winning the Plaintiff’s lawsuit by public notice on August 12, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 27, 2015. The Intervenor did not file an appeal even after the Plaintiff was issued a certified copy of the said judgment on September 30, 2015. (c) At the time of the instant lease contract, the Intervenor was an employee of F Co., Ltd. operated by E, who was the Plaintiff’s friendly Plaintiff at the time of the instant lease contract. [In the absence of any dispute as to the recognition of the Plaintiff, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1-C evidence No.

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant by lending the Intervenor’s name in bad credit standing, and paid KRW 120,00,000 to the Defendant as the lessee. Since the instant lease agreement terminated on August 25, 2015, the Defendant is obligated to return the deposit amount of KRW 120,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The intervenor asserted that the intervenor entered into the instant lease contract for the purpose of securing 120,000,000 won of claims, such as wages, etc. which the intervenor holds against E in accordance with the proposal of E, and thus the intervenor has the right to the security deposit.