1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Based on the exemplification of the judgment with executory power in this court’s 2015da340 loan case, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order against the Defendant (third debtor) of the Defendant (third debtor) as to “five million won out of the claim for the return of deposit for lease deposit” against the Defendant of the Defendant (third debtor) at the time of militaryposisi, 631 Dong 1201 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

On March 28, 2016, the above order of seizure and collection was served on the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In a lawsuit seeking a determination on the cause of the claim, the existence of the collected claim is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, etc.). According to the health class and evidence No. 3, the fact that C brought a move-in report to the apartment of this case on December 17, 2015 is recognized, but it is not enough to acknowledge that C has the right to return the lease deposit to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(E) According to the evidence No. 1 of this case, it is acknowledged that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with E as to the apartment of this case between November 18, 2015, with the term of lease of two years from December 10, 2015, with the deposit of eight million won, and the rent of KRW 50,000 per month. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be accepted as it is not recognized as the existence of the claim for collection of this case.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.