1. The Defendant has the executive force of the judgment of Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision No. 2012Gahap7291 Decided May 24, 2013.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C to lease (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the term of KRW 150,00,000,000 as lease deposit, and the term of lease from August 5, 2011 to August 4, 2013, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to C.

B. On July 18, 2013, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the claim for damages (e.g., damages) filed against B, the Defendant: (a) transferred KRW 150,00,000, which was provisionally seized by the provisional seizure order of claim No. 2013Kadan1479, as to the claim for damages (e.g., damages) against B to the obligor B and the third obligor C; and (b) received the seizure and the collection order (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”) stating that the Defendant may collect the seized claim under the provisional seizure order of claim No. 209,106,048, the remaining amount of KRW 209,108,000, which was seized by the provisional seizure order of claim No. 2013Kadan1479.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 2 and 3 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion terminated the lease contract of this case and requested C to return the claim of this case, and C refuses to return the claim of this case on the ground that C was served with the collection order of this case against the claim of this case. The plaintiff's claim of this case is the plaintiff's claim of this case. Thus, execution according to the collection order of this case against B shall be rejected.

B. A person who leased the instant real estate from the Defendant’s assertion C is not the Plaintiff, and the instant claim was made to B with the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.