1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 18, 2016, the Defendant deposited the underlying statute under this Court No. 1899, Article 487 of the Civil Act, and the deposited money as C and the deposited money as KRW 22,100,410.

(hereinafter “instant deposit 1”). (b)

On September 6, 2016, the Defendant deposited the amount of KRW 22,10,410 with the Plaintiff or D, and the deposited amount of KRW 22,10,410 under Article 487 of the Civil Act, which was based on the Act No. 8466 of this Court’s 2016.

(hereinafter “instant two deposits”) C.

On December 20, 2016, the Defendant deposited money with the Plaintiff, C, and the deposited money of KRW 22,100,410 under Article 487 of the Civil Act; however, without the consent of the deposited money, the Defendant deposited money with the intent of not exercising the right to claim recovery of the deposited money.

(hereinafter “Deposit 3 of this case”). [Grounds for recognition] : Facts that there is no dispute between the parties; entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 6, and 7; and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C, around June 2015, transferred to the Plaintiff the lease deposit claim amounting to KRW 30,000,000,000 with respect to the lease deposit return claim (hereinafter “instant deposit return claim”) held against the Defendant (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s claim”). On June 25, 2015, the Plaintiff’s notice of transfer was sent to the Defendant on June 26, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the deposit amount to KRW 30,00,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The Defendant’s notice of transfer presented by the Plaintiff was not accompanied by C’s certificate of personal seal impression, and it cannot be confirmed whether C transferred C’s claim for the refund of the instant deposit to the Plaintiff because C does not communicate with C, and thereafter, D acquired the instant claim for the refund of the instant deposit. As F applied for the seizure and collection order concerning the instant claim for the refund of the deposit, and the order was served on the Defendant, the Defendant can be identified as the genuine obligee.