2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. A around November 14, 2014, leased the gas station located B in the official city B from the Defendant, and around that time, paid KRW 100 million to the Defendant.

B. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff supplied petroleum products, such as oil, to A, and obtained, as security, a promissory note No. 30 million won (No. 11566 by a notary public, a law firm number, 2014) with a face value of KRW 30 million, an issuer as the Plaintiff, and an addressee as the Plaintiff, and received, from A, a promissory note No. 1156 containing an expression of intent to recognize compulsory execution.

C. The Plaintiff’s continuous supply of oil, etc. to A from December 8, 2014 to January 7, 2015 reached KRW 59,020,00 for the amount of goods not received.

On January 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order (the above court 2015TT 254 case) with respect to the claim of KRW 30 million among the claim for return of the lease deposit against the Defendant by using the authentic deed of promissory notes as the executive title with the notarial deed of the Jeonju District Court Gunsan branch, and received the order of seizure and collection from the above court.

E. On January 16, 2015, the original copy of the above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant.

【Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the lease contract between A and the Defendant is terminated, such as suspending the gas station business on January 2015, Plaintiff A, etc., the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, who is a legitimate collection authority, as well as damages for delay.

B. In the event that Defendant A committed a tort in the course of operating a gas station, the security deposit was agreed to vest in the lessor (the Defendant). Since Party A actually committed a tort such as selling fake petroleum, the security deposit amount to KRW 100 million was reverted to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim due to the lack of deposit.

3. Determination

(a)the cause of the action;