Defendant B shall deliver to Defendant C the real estate listed in the attached list.

Defendant C shall list the attached list from Defendant B.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap 1-5 as to the cause of the claim, the defendant Eul leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "the instant store"), the lease deposit amount of KRW 15 million, monthly rent of KRW 900,000,000,000 from January 26, 2014 to December 31, 2015. The plaintiff lent the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million to the defendant Eul on July 30, 2015 and KRW 14 million on October 6, 2015 to secure the above loan obligation against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff transferred the lease deposit amount of the instant store to the defendant Eul on July 30, 2015 to secure the loan obligation against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff transferred the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,500,000,000 to the same defendant Eul on behalf of the plaintiff to secure the above loan obligation to the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, since the lease contract on the store of this case between the defendants was lawfully terminated by the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, the defendant Eul has a duty to deliver the store of this case to the defendant Eul, and the defendant C has a duty to pay the plaintiff KRW 9 million as claimed by the plaintiff among the lease deposit of this case at the same time as the delivery of the store of this case from the defendant Eul.

As to the determination of Defendant B’s assertion, Defendant B asserted that the above assignment of claims was null and void because it was made without knowing the content of the contract, but there is no evidence to prove the defect in such expression of intent. Thus, the above defense cannot be accepted.

In addition, Defendant B asserts that the monetary loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B is null and void due to an excessive interest agreement exceeding the Interest Limitation Act, but there is no evidence to prove that such excessive interest agreement was made.