1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from August 10, 2013 to September 24, 2015, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. On September 12, 2007, C leased from the Defendant the land and its ground (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on the land and five parcels of land outside Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “instant real estate”) as “lease deposit amount: KRW 170 million, and KRW 1300,000 per month.”

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease”). The lease agreement states “rental deposit: KRW 20 million per month; and KRW 1 million per month.” However, C and the Defendant agreed to increase the rent by KRW 1,300,000 per month instead of taking the rental deposit as KRW 170,000,000.

After that, C and the defendant agreed to lower the rent of KRW 1 million per month around November 2009.

B. On August 30, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for refund of the rental deposit amounting to KRW 170 million from C.

C on September 23, 201, notified the Defendant of the assignment of the obligation.

C. The lease of this case was terminated at the expiration of the term on September 1, 2011.

On August 29, 2013, the voluntary auction procedure (Seoul District Court Goyang support E) commenced on the instant real estate, and on June 13, 2014, the instant real estate was sold.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts found in the determination on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant (leased) is obligated to pay the Plaintiff (the assignee of the claim for the refund of the rental deposit) KRW 170 million.

The defendant asserts that there is no obligation to pay due to the failure to accept the assignment of claims between the plaintiff and C, but inasmuch as C, the transferor of claims, notifies the defendant of the assignment of claims, the defendant cannot set up against the defendant on the ground that he did not accept the plaintiff

In addition, the defendant asserts that he had a special contract prohibiting the assignment of claims regarding the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case with C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. 1) C from September 12, 2007 (the date on which the lease of this case commences) to June 13, 2014 (the date on which the lease of this case commences).