1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the claim claim amounting to KRW 44,804,790 based on the executory payment order in the Seoul Central District Court 2013 tea 17854 investment refund case against Defendant B, the Plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order as the Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT15907, May 28, 2013, with respect to the claim for the refund of the deposit money of part of the Gangnam-gu building No. 101 (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by Defendant Company D (hereinafter “instant building”).

B. On March 10, 2014, upon receipt of the above order of seizure and collection, D deposited KRW 57,600,000 to the Defendant C or the Defendant as the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No. 5124.

The facts of the cause of deposit are as follows: (a) the lessee of the building of this case is the defendant C or the defendant company; (b) it is not possible to ascertain who is the lessee of the building of this case, and thus, (c) the amount of KRW 57,600,000 should be returned to anyone; and (d) the deposit is made pursuant to the latter part

C. Accordingly, the plaintiff is against the defendant company.

Based on the claim claim amounting to KRW 77,110,358 based on the payment order stated in the subsection, the defendant company was issued a claim for withdrawal of the above deposit amount by the Seoul Central District Court 2016TTTT2027 on November 11, 2016, and the order was served on the Republic of Korea as the garnishee on November 16, 2016.

On the other hand, on August 25, 2014, Defendant C seized Defendant C’s claim for the withdrawal of the above deposit based on the tax claim amounting to KRW 351,402,310 against Defendant C.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 2-7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion, although Defendant C entered into a lease agreement of the instant building as a lessee, the Defendant Company paid security deposit, rent, management fee, etc., and the building was at the seat of the principal office of the Defendant Company and was not used as the residence of Defendant C.