1. Defendant A shall deliver to Defendant B the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. Defendant B shall be attached to Defendant A.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 22, 2008, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to the real estate (hereinafter “instant apartment”) indicated in the attached list, which is owned by Defendant B and Dong, by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million and the lease period as March 9, 2010. At that time, Defendant B was handed over the instant apartment from Defendant B.

B. On January 22, 2008, Defendant A transferred the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case against Defendant B to secure the payment of the claim for reimbursement to the Plaintiff, and on the same day, Defendant A notified the transfer of claim to Defendant B.

C. The instant lease agreement has been renewed even after the expiration of the term, and the Defendant A currently occupies the instant building.

On the other hand, on March 16, 2016, the Plaintiff notified Defendant B of the termination of the instant lease agreement, and on March 17, 2016, the said notification was served on Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. After a lessor has been notified of the transfer of the claim for the refund of deposit, the effect of the agreement between the lessor and the lessee may not affect the transferee of the claim for the refund of deposit, even if the lessor and the lessee have made an explicit or implied agreement regarding the renewal of the lease contract or extension of the contract period

In addition, in a case where a creditor intends to exercise the debtor's right to preserve his/her own claim, the debtor's insolvency is ordinarily required, but the creditor who has taken over the claim to refund the lease deposit, seeks a name that the lessee's house name needs to be first performed in order to claim the performance thereof, and such intention is not related to the preservation of the claim and the existence of the lessor's financial capability, which is the debtor, and thus,

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, Apr. 25, 1989). According to the above facts of recognition, the above facts of recognition are examined.