1. C is about KRW 150,00,000 deposited by the Seoul Northern District Court No. 777 of 2012 on March 16, 2012.

1. Basic facts

A. (1) On February 2, 2009, the Defendant leased the first floor of the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D ground building from C with a lease deposit of KRW 310 million and the lease term of KRW 2 years.

(2) After paying the full amount of the deposit, the Defendant operated the coffee specialty called “Ecacil” in the above building.

C, however, around November 1, 201, notified the Defendant that the instant lease contract will be terminated.

B. Around August 2, 2011, the Plaintiff lent KRW 107,500,000 to the Defendant as a broker of F.

F up to October 1, 2011, F gave to the Plaintiff a certificate of loan as of August 1, 201, written in the name of the Defendant stating that the Plaintiff will pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff.

The loan certificate bears the defendant's seal impression.

C. On October 11, 2011, C received a notice of credit transfer contract and credit transfer and takeover from the effect that “the Defendant, as of October 10, 201, transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 150 million out of the claims for refund of lease deposit under the instant lease agreement (hereinafter “instant claim for refund of deposit”) and notified the lessor thereof.”

The defendant's seal impression is affixed to the documents. D.

On October 14, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a provisional attachment on the instant claim to return the deposit amount based on the above loan certificate and received a provisional attachment order by Suwon District Court 201Kadan102746.

The above decision was served on October 20, 201 to C.

E. On March 16, 2012, C deposited KRW 150 million with the Plaintiff or the Defendant as a mixed deposit based on Article 487 of the Civil Act and Articles 248(1) and 291 of the Civil Execution Act, on the ground that “A was subject to the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment order” in the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015,50 million, on March 16, 2012, on the grounds that “the Plaintiff or the Defendant was not aware of the legitimate obligee due to disputes over the transfer of the obligation to return the instant deposit.”

(f) (1) The Defendant against the Plaintiff and F on May 17, 2012.