1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On February 29, 2012, the Defendant leased the instant real estate at KRW 24,194,000 from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation, including the conclusion of a lease agreement between the Defendant and the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant lease agreement” and the Defendant’s claim for the repayment of the deposit under the instant lease agreement shall be deemed to be “the instant security deposit claim.” (b)

On January 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Defendant for a payment order against the Defendant to pay damages for delay amounting to KRW 43,549,961 and KRW 43,324,093 of this amount (the Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Da453), and on February 13, 2014, the above payment order became final and conclusive as it is.

C. On November 14, 2013, the Plaintiff, including the confirmation of the provisional attachment of the Plaintiff’s claim, seizure, and collection order, was issued a provisional attachment order for the claim of the instant deposit (Seoul District Court 2013Kadan50153, hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”), and the instant provisional attachment order was served on the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on November 18, 2013.

On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the above provisional seizure to the provisional seizure, received a decision to collect the claim of the instant security deposit, and the said decision became final and conclusive around that time.

(No. 2014 Other 9150) d.

The lease contract of this case, such as the termination of the lease contract of this case, has been terminated on or around February 28, 2016, but the defendant occupies the real estate of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. If the obligee seeks to exercise the obligor’s right to preserve his/her claim, the obligee’s housing name should be the requirement of the obligor’s insolvency, but the obligee who has taken over the claim to refund the lease deposit should have the lessee’s right to demand performance.