Whether the execution creditor who received the whole claim for the return of the deposit for lease of a building can exercise in subrogation the right to claim for lease of a house against the execution debtor of the third debtor.

In order to preserve the entire amount of claim, the Plaintiff, a creditor, who is a lessee of a building, received the claim for the return of the lease deposit due to the termination of the lease against the Defendant “B,” a lessor, according to the assignment order, can exercise the right to claim for the name of the building against the Defendant “A” of the said Defendant “B, who has a simultaneous performance relationship with the above lease deposit return claim.

Article 404 of the Civil Act

Gambling species

Co., Ltd. and one other

1. In the case of Defendant Gamba Co., Ltd., Ltd., the second floor of the real estate indicated in the annexed list of 107 square meters and 107 square meters, 3 square meters and 55 square meters (181 square meters and 81 square meters) from among those in the annexed list of 107 square meters.

2. At the same time, the defendant Park Yong-ok ordered the building portion stipulated in paragraph (1) of the above paragraph from the mining foundation of the defendant corporation to the plaintiff at the rate of 5 percent per annum from the day following the day on which the name of the building portion as well as the above part of the building was clarified to the full payment of the above money.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant's gambling room are dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

5. Each of the above paragraphs 1 and 2 above may be provisionally executed.

The damages for delay in paragraph (2) shall be calculated at the rate of 25% per annum.

Since it is an official document, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (No. 6 of the building register, Gap evidence No. 2 (Judgment), Gap evidence No. 3, Gap evidence No. 4, Gap evidence No. 5 (resident registration card), Gap evidence No. 7-1, 2 (each real estate lease contract), Gap evidence No. 8 (Peremptory Notice) which are presumed to have been authenticity by witness witness testimony, and Eul evidence No. 940.3 of the building No. 107 of the building No. 107, Sep. 3, 197, which had been presumed to have been presumed to have been authenticity of the above complaint No. 1, No. 97 of the building No. 2 of the building No. 97 of the building No. 3 of the building No. 198, Oct. 2, 1987; No. 9700, Oct. 1, 2005; and No. 97 of the building No. 5 of the building of this case).

However, since the above monthly rent obligation of the Defendant Company was delayed from September 1983, the Defendant Company's above monthly rent claim against the Defendant Company as its automatic claim, and the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant's entire monthly rent claim against the Defendant Company was set off against its set-off, the above assignment order was retroactively set off against its equal amount at the time when the assignment order was delivered to the Defendant Park Yong-ok, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. However, the Defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the above lease agreement between the defendant company and the defendant Park Yong-ok terminated on October 30, 1983. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to refund the above lease deposit from the defendant Park Yong-ok and order the defendant Park Jung-ok to specify the building part of the above lease. As seen above, the defendant company's claim of this case against the defendant Park Jung-ok was later transferred from the defendant company to the plaintiff in lieu of payment according to the above assignment order. Thus, the defendant Park Jung-ok is obligated to clarify the building part of this case. The defendant Park Jung-ok's claim for the above lease deposit against the plaintiff 4,00,000 won as well as the above building part of this case's lease deposit against the above defendant Park Jong-ok was rejected by the defendant company's 9% of the annual damages claim of this case's 9% of the above lease deposit against the above defendant Park Jong-ok, and the plaintiff's damages for delay can not be claimed from the plaintiff's 9% of the above provisional execution damages claim of this case's 9% of this case's damages claim.

Judges J. Syun (Presiding Judge)