1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Facts of recognition

On June 26, 2009, Nonparty C, including the conclusion of a lease agreement, leased 60 square meters of the lease deposit amount of 7,000,000,000 won of the lease deposit, monthly rent of 1,00,000 won (payment on January 10), and paid the above lease deposit to the Defendant around that time.

(hereinafter “The instant lease deposit”). On the other hand, on December 14, 2012, C prepared a power of attorney to delegate the instant lease deposit to E, and removed from the said factory building. On December 24, 2012, the Defendant newly concluded a lease agreement on the said factory with E.

The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order for KRW 3,411,150 out of the lease deposit claim of this case as the Incheon District Court 2009TTT 2009TT 23319 on January 15, 2010 based on the executory order of payment for food costs in the Changwon District Court Decision 2004Da5766, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order for KRW 3,41,150 from among the lease deposit claim of this case. This order was served on the Defendant, the garnishee on January 20, 2010.

[Ground of recognition] In light of the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 2 through 5, and 7's fact-finding as to the cause of claim as a whole, it is reasonable to view that the lease contract of this case was implicitly agreed on December 14, 2012.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above collection amount and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, who has the right to collect KRW 3,411,150, out of the claim for the return of the lease deposit of this case.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim for food costs against C is not clear whether the price is food prices or alcoholic beverage prices, and that there was no receipt, so it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim for collection. However, the non-existence or extinction of the execution claim cannot be refused by the garnishee by asserting it as a defense in the lawsuit of collection in the lawsuit of collection in the place of claim objection.

Supreme Court Decision 194 delivered on 194