1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts are set forth in the judgment of the court of first instance.

3) From the first half to the second half of the first half (from the third second to the seventh anniversary of the second half) the Court 2018da20907, "B" Seoul Southern District Court 2018da20907, Seoul Southern District Court 2018da20907, is the same as the corresponding part of the first instance judgment, so this shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination on the gist of the cause of the claim and the Plaintiff’s standing to sue

A. The gist of the cause of the claim argues that the Plaintiff succeeded to the lessor status of the instant lease, and that the instant lease agreement was terminated on December 4, 2018, and the Defendant should pay the lease deposit and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1 as to the Plaintiff’s standing to sue 1) If there exists a seizure and collection order, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The obligor loses standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the Defendant at the time of termination of the lease contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2388, Apr. 11, 200; 2010Da64877, Nov. 25, 2010); 103, and 104, respectively; 2018: (a) If the obligee G (hereinafter “G”) received the entire purport of pleadings from the Defendant on May 8, 2018, as Seoul Southern District Court 2018TTB10479, the Plaintiff and the third obligor as the Defendant; (b) the amount of the lease bond to be received from the Defendant at the time of termination of the lease contract; and (c) the remaining amount of the bond to be received from the Defendant under Article 185 of the Enforcement Decree of the Housing Lease Protection Act; and (3)