1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant Intervenor drafted a contract for the assignment of claims on January 29, 2013, stating that the lessor’s lease deposit against the lessor E (hereinafter “the lease of this case”) is transferred KRW 78 million to F with respect to 203 Dong-dong 1308, Gyeyang-gu, Incheon.

B. On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to F with the due date set as February 12, 2013, and F transferred to the Plaintiff the instant claim for the refund of the lease deposit, which was acquired from the Defendant Intervenor’s Intervenor on the same day to secure the said loan.

C. Meanwhile, on February 6, 2013, the Defendant Intervenor borrowed KRW 25 million from the Defendant who operates credit business with the name of G, and entered into a contract with the Defendant to transfer KRW 110 million, which is the entire amount of the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case, as security (hereinafter “instant contract for the transfer of claims”). The Defendant sent KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor’s account (new H) in the name of the Defendant’s supplementary intervenor, and KRW 10 million on February 6, 2013, and KRW 10 million on February 8, 2013, and KRW 5 million on February 13, 2013, respectively. Meanwhile, the Defendant notified the lessor of the said transfer on behalf of the Defendant Intervenor.

On November 8, 2013, the lessor deposited and deposited KRW 110 million for repayment with the Defendant, the Intervenor, the Intervenor, the F, and the Plaintiff, on the ground of the concurrent seizure, etc., where the obligee of the lease deposit of this case is unknown or it is difficult to identify the obligee of KRW 110 million due to the existence of a provisional seizure, etc. by the Incheon District Court Decision No. 2013, Nov. 8, 2013.

E. F was in excess of obligations at the time of the closing of the instant argument.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1 through 3, Gap evidence 6, 7, 10, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, Gap evidence 12-1 through 3, Gap evidence 20 through 23, Eul evidence 4 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that it was concluded between the Defendant’s Intervenor, a bad credit standing, and the Defendant.