1. At the same time, the Defendant would pay KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, along with the delivery of the buildings listed in the attached list from C.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 9, 2011, the Defendant concluded a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with respect to the building indicated in the attached list C and attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) with the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,00,000,000, and from July 9, 201 to July 9, 2013 (hereinafter “instant lease contract”). Around that time, the Defendant received KRW 30,000,000 from C and handed over the instant building to C.

B. On October 11, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking consolation money, etc. against the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch C. On April 26, 2012, the said court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,000,000 and its delay damages.”

(F) Daegu District Court Branch 201Gadan12123, hereinafter referred to as the “instant judgment”). C.

Although C appealed, on January 30, 2013, the Daegu District Court rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal (Seoul District Court 2012Na10698), and the judgment of this case is ultimately the same year.

2. It was confirmed as is, 19. D.

On September 4, 2013, based on the authentic copy of the instant judgment with executory power, the Plaintiff was issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim to return the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, which C has against the Defendant from the Daegu District Court Branch Branch branch to the Defendant, to the provisional seizure. The Plaintiff was issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim to transfer the lease deposit amount of KRW 30,000,000, which C transferred from the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch to the Defendant to the original seizure (hereinafter “Tgu District Court Branch

9. It was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 through 7 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the lease contract of this case was terminated upon the expiration of the period. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 30,000,000 to the plaintiff, the collection creditor, unless there are special circumstances.

The plaintiff is the plaintiff.