1. On April 1, 2018, the Defendant, upon arrival of April 1, 2018, received real estate indicated in Annex C from C, simultaneously with the Plaintiff’s delivery.

1. On April 1, 2012, C entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on a deposit amount of KRW 50,00,000, KRW 2,700,000 for lease deposit, and KRW 24 months for lease term (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) and subsequently entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant on April 1, 2012 (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The instant lease agreement was explicitly renewed on April 1, 2014 and April 1, 2016.

By February 28, 2018, around the date of the closing of the instant case, C was in arrears with three times until February 28, 2018.

On June 19, 2017, based on the notarial deed with the executory power of No. 112, 2015 against C, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the amount equivalent to the amount of claims out of the lease deposit return claims under the instant lease contract against C by the Changwon District Court 2017TTB141, based on the notarial deed with D Office No. 112, 2015. The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on June 22, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 1 and 4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant, even though there was no monetary transaction relationship with the Plaintiff, prepared the instant notarial deed by coercion, and C extinguished all the claims for the execution of the instant collection order by completing the principal repayment to E. In this case, the instant collection order is null and void, and the Plaintiff did not have the right to collect, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

On the other hand, the non-existence or extinction of an executory claim does not allow the defendant, who is the garnishee, to refuse the performance of the obligation by asserting it as a defense in the lawsuit of collection in which the executory debtor would have asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da13781, Sept. 24, 1996). Thus, the defendant's defense against the principal safety cannot be accepted.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is against C’s Defendant.