1. Defendant C shall deliver to Defendant D the real estate indicated in the attached Form.

2. Defendant D is described in paragraph 1 from Defendant C.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

(a) Indication of claims: It shall be as shown in the changed cause of claims; and

(b) Judgment on deeming confessions: Articles 208 (3) 2 and 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. On March 20, 2017, Defendant C’s real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Defendant D on March 20, 2017

) The lease deposit was leased KRW 10,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 600,000, and the lease term was from March 20, 2017 to March 20, 2019 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”).

(2) On September 28, 2018, Defendant C transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 3 million out of the claims to return deposits under the instant lease agreement. The Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by Defendant C, and notified Defendant D of the said assignment of claims on February 14, 2019. The notification was sent to Defendant D on February 15, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1-1 to Gap 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of the judgment on the cause of the claim, the instant lease agreement terminated at the expiration of the term, and the Plaintiff, as the assignee of the right to return the lease deposit against Defendant C, may exercise the right to claim the delivery of the instant real estate against Defendant C in subrogation of Defendant D. Thus, in the instant case seeking the Plaintiff by subrogation of Defendant D, Defendant C has a duty to deliver the instant real estate to Defendant D.

C. As to Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C asserted to the effect that the term of the instant lease agreement was extended with Defendant D, which was not terminated. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the extension of the said term, and even if the Defendants agreed to extend the term, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff who acquired the right to return the lease deposit prior to the renewal of the lease agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, Apr. 25, 1989).