1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

On March 7, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty C seeking the return of the lease deposit with the High Government Branch of the District Court (2013Gahap50398), and rendered a judgment on May 24, 2013 that “C (Defendant in the above case) shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 220,000,000,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on June 13, 2013.

On October 30, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim amount of KRW 218,138,850 among the claims finalized by the said judgment, and received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013TTTTT 2013TT 17907) with respect to “the amount reached the above claim amount out of the claims to return the lease deposit that C has paid to the Defendant when leasing the apartment as stated in the attached list” from the Defendant. The said order was served on the Defendant on November 18, 2013, and on December 13, 2013, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including the provisional number), and the plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the whole purport of pleading C from the defendant on December 27, 2011 to February 20, 2014, the lease term of the apartment of this case was set from February 21, 201 to February 20, 2014, and the lease deposit was leased as KRW 380,000,00, and the above lease deposit was paid to the defendant. Since the current lease term has expired, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff who received the above claim seizure and collection order as to KRW 218,138,850 among the above lease deposit, and damages for delay from the day after delivery of the apartment of this case to the day of full payment.

Since the lessee of the lease agreement on the apartment of this case is not C but C, the son, the son, the defendant is not obligated to pay the above lease deposit to the plaintiff who is the collection obligee who is not the party to the lease agreement, and is the debtor, not the party to the lease contract.

Judgment

A Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the result of the fact-finding reply to the E head of Songpa-gu E head of this court is alone about the apartment of this case between the defendant on December 27, 201.