1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant A shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff and Defendant B: (a) Seoul Central District Court in 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. Upon receiving a loan of KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on July 4, 2014, Defendant A transferred the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of KRW 10 million to C as security for the said loan. On October 13, 2014, the notice of transfer with the fixed date was issued to C on October 13, 2014.

B. Defendant B received the claim amounting to KRW 70,000,000,000,000 for the claim amount as the District Court 2014TT No. 19788 and the claim amounting to KRW 70,000 for the lease deposit return claim against Defendant A, and the above order was served to C on October 14, 2014.

C. As of November 7, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 2,332,280,00 after deducting unpaid monthly rent and management expenses from the lease deposit amount of KRW 10 million (hereinafter “instant deposit”). The Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 25358, supra (hereinafter “instant deposit”), the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and the depositor as the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] For Defendant A: The statement of confession (Article 150(1) main sentence of the Civil Procedure Act) against Defendant B: Each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation against Defendant A as the claimant for payment of the instant deposit ex officio as to whether the lawsuit against Defendant A is lawful.

On the other hand, it cannot be deemed that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant A is necessary to confirm the right to claim the payment of deposit money for the purpose of claiming the payment of deposit money for the deposit of this case, and the defendant A does not dispute the plaintiff's assertion. Thus, there is no benefit to seek the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A for the payment of deposit money of this case.

3. Where the judgment on the claim against the defendant B was transferred twice, the order between the assignee is not determined after the date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but with the recognition of the debtor as to the assignment of the claim, i.e., the fixed date.