1. As to the real estate listed in the attached list to Defendant C, the Daejeon District Court Thaian registry office on November 11, 2010.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 11, 2010, the contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis between Defendant B and Defendant C and the registration thereof entered in the separate list owned by Defendant C (hereinafter “instant house”) concluded a contract to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis for lease on a deposit basis as of November 10, 2012 with Defendant C by setting the period of no later than 50,000,000, and the duration of a right to lease on a deposit basis as of November 10, 2012, Defendant C paid KRW 50,000,000 for the instant house to Defendant C on the same day, and completed the registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis (hereinafter “registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis”).

B. On January 31, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a contract of lease on a deposit basis between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and the registration thereof, with Defendant B, to establish a right to lease on a deposit basis as to the instant house until November 10, 2012, setting the deposit deposit amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the duration of the right to lease on a deposit basis as to the instant house. On February 1, 2011, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a lease on a deposit basis as of February 1, 201, by the Taean District Court of Daejeon, Taean District, District Court No. 2044, Feb. 1, 2011.

C. On May 30, 201, the Defendant Incheon Credit Guarantee Foundation, which seized the Defendant Incheon Credit Guarantee Foundation’s right to lease on a deposit basis, received a seizure and collection order as to the Defendant B’s right to lease on a deposit basis against Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court Decision 2011TTB094, and completed the additional registration of seizure of the right to lease on a deposit basis (right to lease on a deposit basis) on June 9, 201.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B and C in order to pay the deposit for lease on a deposit basis with Defendant B and C even after the period of the contract for lease on a deposit basis has expired, and this court rendered a judgment on July 16, 2013 (2013Gadan1367) as follows.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C is dismissed.

At the time, the plaintiff sought the return of the security deposit by subrogation of the defendant B without attaching the claim for the refund of the security deposit, but seizure and seizure of the claim.