1. According to the decision on performance recommendation for the claim for the lease deposit against the plaintiff of the non-party C in this court 2014 Ghana7498.

1. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5-1, 2, 6, and 8-1, 5-1, 5-2, and 8.

소외 C는 원고를 상대로 하여 주문기재 사건으로 임대차보증금의 반환을 청구하는 소를 제기하였고, 이 법원이 2014. 4. 17. 이행권고결정을 하여 그 무렵 그 결정이 확정되었는데, 피고가 그 후 그 결정에 의한 임대차보증금반환�구채권을 양수하여 위 이행권고결정에 대한 승계집행문을 부여받았음. 나.

In the above case, the above C entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, and the termination date of the lease term was July 15, 2014, but the Plaintiff knew that the lease contract was concluded with a third party without the consent of the third party, and the Defendant (the Plaintiff stated in the complaint of the above case to the effect that it was a clerical error, but it appears that it was a clerical error) claimed that the lease deposit was leased to the above D and the contract was prepared by making himself as a lessee as a security.

The Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement on 100 square meters of the warehouse site E in Kimpo-si and 1500 square meters of its ground among the buildings on which 1500 square meters was located in Kimpo-si. On March 23, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the lessee as above C, and the registration of the business is made in the name of the above C.

After that, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement between the above C and D by setting the deposit amount of 20 million won, monthly rent of 20 million won, and the term of lease from July 15, 2012 to July 15, 2015 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). The Defendant claimed the return of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement due to the case entered in the text. 2. On February 2,, the Plaintiff is the said D1, and the Defendant does not have the right to claim the return of the lease deposit.