2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

A. On November 24, 2011, the Defendant leased to C the 4th 78.78 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) of the real estate indicated in the attached Table to C as indicated in the attached Table, with the lease deposit of KRW 105,00,000, the lease deposit of KRW 105,000, the lease deposit of KRW 24,201 from December 23, 2011 to December 23, 2013 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”), and C, with the payment of the said lease deposit to the Defendant and possession of the instant real estate upon delivery to the Defendant until the date of the closing of argument, and the instant lease agreement expired on December 23, 2013.

B. Meanwhile, around September 17, 2012, C prepared a promissory note No. 50,000,000 won in face value as of September 17, 2012, and delivered it to the Plaintiff by a notary public, which was named as a broad-scale bearer of each of the payment date, the date of payment, the place of payment, and the place of payment (hereinafter “No. notarial deed of this case”).

C. The Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for a seizure and collection order on May 15, 2013, with the title of execution for the instant promissory note with respect to the amount of KRW 50,000,000,000, out of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement with the Defendant under the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013TTTA; and (b) filed an application for a seizure and collection order on the remainder of the returned claim excluding the amount that C is entitled to receive preferential repayment pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act; and (c) issued such a decision (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”); and (d) the said decision was served on the Defendant on May 17, 2013.

On November 24, 2014, this Court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that “Defendant C shall deliver the instant real estate to Defendant B by February 15, 2015,” and the Plaintiff and C, who received the said ruling of recommending reconciliation, shall raise the objection period.