1. The Defendant’s payment order against the Plaintiff was issued on April 10, 2015 by the Busan District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 26, 2011, the Defendant leased a residential building owned by the Plaintiff (three floors during the Gimpo City C operation; hereinafter “instant housing”) from the Plaintiff to April 16, 201, with the lease deposit of KRW 110 million, monthly rent of KRW 250,000,000, and the period from April 16, 201 to April 16, 2013.

around that time, the Defendant received the instant house, and completed the move-in report with his husband and children on April 19, 201.

B. On August 21, 2014, the instant housing was sold to a third party (E and F) on March 30, 2015, when the auction procedure (Sacheon District Court Branch D, hereinafter “instant auction procedure”).

The highest priority security right extinguished by the sale was the right to collateral security established on June 27, 2011.

The defendant did not demand a distribution in the above auction procedure.

C. On April 3, 2015, the Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for payment of the amount equivalent to KRW 108,000,000 in the remainder of the lease deposit, and received the payment order indicated in the order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) on April 10, 2015, and the instant payment order was finalized around that time.

On August 19, 2015, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order regarding the Plaintiff’s claim against a third party (the Republic of Korea) with the title of execution of the instant payment order, and received dividends of KRW 68,615,855 from the distribution procedure (the Incheon District Court Branch Branch 2015, 2015, 23).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1, 2, 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is a tenant with opposing power under the Housing Lease Protection Act, and the third party who purchased the housing of this case succeeds to the lessor's status in the auction procedure of this case, and thereby, he exempted the defendant from the obligation to return the lease deposit.

Therefore, although the Plaintiff did not have the obligation to pay the lease deposit to the Defendant, the instant payment order was issued unfairly.

B. The defendant alleged as the defendant succeeds to the status of a lessor.