1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On July 6, 2015, with respect to the lessor C, lessee, Defendant, deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease term of KRW 600,000 from August 26, 2015 to August 26, 2017 (hereinafter “instant lease term”).

In addition, the defendant and his mother-friendly E reported the transfer to the housing of this case on August 20, 2015.

B. On February 19, 2016, the Seoul Western District Court 2015 tea5205, the Plaintiff issued a claim attachment and collection order with respect to KRW 12,962,62 among the claim to return the lease deposit of the instant house to E as Seoul Western District Court 2016TT1614, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order with respect to KRW 12,962,62 among the claim to return the lease deposit of the instant house to E.

C. C, on March 4, 2016, remitted the remainder of KRW 10,820,668, excluding the overdue rent of KRW 30,00,00,000 and KRW 12,962,622, to the Defendant’s new bank account. On March 11, 2016, the Seoul Western District Court deposited KRW 196,00,000 on the ground that there was the above claim seizure and collection order.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s lease agreement on the instant housing was concluded between E and E, instead of the Defendant, and E had the right to refund the lease deposit. Since the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order regarding the lease deposit, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 12,962,62, which was deposited by C is against the Plaintiff.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the Defendant entered in the instant lease agreement, which is a disposal document, as a lessee, is not sufficient to recognize that the lessee of the instant housing lease agreement is not the Defendant, but E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim needs to be examined further.