1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 19, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. On April 2, 2004, the Plaintiff leased to Defendant B a lease deposit of KRW 35 million with the cement bricks, bricks, slives, and 27.6 square meters at a single-story shop located on the ground D, Chungcheongnam-gun, Hong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and around that time, the Plaintiff was fully paid the said lease deposit from Defendant B.

On May 18, 2006, the creditor of Defendant B received the order of provisional seizure of claims under the above lease agreement against the plaintiff of Defendant B as Hongsung Branch Branch of Daejeon District Court 2006Kadan763 on May 18, 2006, and on October 22, 2007, the Daejeon District Court Hongsung Branch of 2007 Tachi1318 on which the provisional seizure was transferred to the provisional seizure was issued.

On April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff returned KRW 35 million upon Defendant B’s request.

However, on July 2, 2015, F, who solely inherited the E’s property, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for collection amounting to the Daejeon District Court red branch of the Daejeon District Court 2015da3761, and on July 2, 2015, the voluntary conciliation of “the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 35 million to F, who shall pay KRW 20 million until August 31, 2015, and KRW 15 million until December 31, 2015” (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 (including each number in the case with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition of the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff paid KRW 35 million to F in accordance with the instant conciliation, and Defendant B exempted the Plaintiff from the liability to F, and obtained profits equivalent to the same amount. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 35 million per annum from September 19, 2015 (the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case) to the day of complete payment (the day following the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint of this case) to the day of complete payment.

3. Claim against Defendant C

A. Defendant C, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, had deceiving the Plaintiff as if it had been extinguished with Defendant B’s obligation to pay back unjust enrichment to Defendant B.