1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On September 30, 201 and March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff had a claim for reimbursement under each credit guarantee agreement against Nonparty B. The Plaintiff as the right to preserve the lease deposit against the Defendant of Songpa-gu Seoul apartment No. 11, 1303 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was decided to provisionally seize the claim on April 16, 201 (Seoul Western District Court Decision 2014Kadan50686, hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) and the Defendant, as the third obligor, filed a claim for reimbursement of KRW 160 million from September 30, 201 and KRW 20,000 with KRW 30,00,000,000, KRW 160,000 with KRW 30,000,000, KRW 415,000,000 with KRW 30,000,000,0000, KRW 135,014,000,00.

2. In light of the fact that B continued to reside in the apartment of this case by January 17, 2016, after receiving the provisional seizure of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that, after receiving the provisional seizure of the instant claim, the Defendant appears to have returned the lease deposit to B in violation of the order of prohibition of payment, and accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the claim amount, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 160 million, which is the above claim amount, as damages.

However, in full view of the results of each fact-finding conducted by the head of the Dong and the head of Songpa-gu Office, B and their families are the case.