1. Nonparty C deposited with the Seoul Central District Court No. 6786 on March 31, 2015 22,00,000 won out of KRW 113,714,330, which was deposited by Nonparty C in gold 6786.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 7, 2012, Defendant B transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 22 million out of the lease deposit claims against Nonparty C with respect to “D Apartment 1205 Dong 304, Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and notified Nonparty C of the assignment of claims by means of content-certified mail on December 5, 2012.

B. After that, on April 24, 2013, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a provisional seizure order of KRW 90,513,712 against Defendant Korea Housing Finance Corporation’s claim amounting to Defendant B’s claim amounting to KRW 90,513,712, the Seoul Central District Court rendered a provisional seizure order of claim amounting to KRW 10,057,079, the claimed amount of the Defendant Bank’s claim amount, Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan4836, April 24, 2013, to Nonparty C.

C. Nonparty C deposited KRW 113,714,30,000, which deducted overdue management expenses, etc. from the rental deposit’s KRW 1220,000,000,000, on the ground that the transfer, provisional attachment, etc. concurrently competes after the expiration of the lease term, and the creditor cannot be known without negligence, as the Seoul Central District Court No. 6786 in 20

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, among the lease deposit deposited by Nonparty C, the right to claim for payment of KRW 22 million transferred to the Plaintiff before provisional seizure of the Bank of Korea was executed. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is with merit.

In this regard, Defendant Korea Housing Finance Corporation asserts that Defendant B, the debtor, transferred part of the claim for return of lease deposit, which is the only property of the debtor, to the plaintiff, constitutes a fraudulent act.

The claim acquisition agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant B constitutes a fraudulent act.

Even if the defendant Korea Housing Finance Corporation and the plaintiff are revoked and confirmed, the bond acquisition agreement is still valid until the above act is revoked and confirmed, and there is no evidence to view that the contract was revoked by fraudulent act.