1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B leased from Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) KRW 8,361,00 of the lease deposit, KRW 201,550 of the monthly rent, and KRW 201,550 of the contract period from June 7, 2017 to June 30, 2019.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant lease contract”).

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s notary public against Defendant B issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the claim against “9,323,287 won, out of the claim for the return of the lease deposit against Defendant B’s Defendant Corporation, which would be caused by the termination, termination, etc. of the lease agreement between Defendant B and Defendant Corporation (hereinafter “the claim for the return of the lease deposit in this case”) with the title of execution of the authentic copy of the notarial deed with the executory power of No. 1066, 2013.

(Reasons for Recognition) The fact that there is no dispute over the dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s claim for collection of the lease deposit, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for collection of the lease deposit constitutes prohibited claims (and, in addition, the Defendant Corporation did not yet terminate the lease contract of this case).

In the lawsuit of collection based on the attachment and collection order, the existence of the seized claim is proved by the creditor. Therefore, in case where the creditor files a lawsuit claiming the collection of the lease deposit against the third debtor based on the attachment and collection order, the plaintiff, the creditor, who is the creditor, should prove that the claim subject to collection does not constitute the claim subject to prohibition of seizure.

However, Article 246 (1) 6 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act, and Article 10 (1) 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act provides that a claim for the return of a lease deposit shall not be seized, which is not more than 20 million won (in Seo-gu, Seo-gu).

and above.