1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that C is entitled to preferential reimbursement pursuant to Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act among the claims for the repayment of the lease deposit against C as the claim amount of KRW 48,145,276, based on the payment order in the Jeonju District Court 2017 tea 1102, and the former State District Court 2017Hu6286, the lease deposit was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a collection obligee, KRW 10,000,00 as lease deposit for the instant real estate and delay damages therefor.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s mother, together with D, entered into a lease agreement with the lessee E on July 12, 2007 on the condition that the lessee and E receive KRW 10,000,000 from the lessee, and the monthly rent of KRW 200,000,00 from the lessee and the lessee’s father who actually reside in the instant real estate shall be paid by the lessee E (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit since the Plaintiff’s obligee to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement is not C but E.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, etc.). B.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove the existence of the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the defendant C, which is the claim for collection in this case.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.