1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, with respect to D, has a claim of KRW 200 million by a notary public based on the notarial deed No. 14 of 2015 (as of January 9, 2015) with respect to D.

B. From January 5, 2013 to January 4, 2017, D leased the building F from Defendant B to KRW 1.60 million. On December 28, 2017, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order against the KRW 200 million out of the lease deposit refund claim against Defendant D with the Daegu District Court, An Ansan-dong Branch of the Daegu District Court, No. 2017TTTB, No. 201463, Dec. 28, 2017. The seizure and collection order were served on Defendant B on January 2, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the primary claim;

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, Defendant B is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and damages for delay to the Plaintiff, upon request of the Plaintiff, who received a seizure and collection order as to the claim to return the lease deposit of Defendant D.

B. Defendant B’s assertion 1) Prior to issuance of a seizure and collection order upon the Plaintiff’s request, Defendant B asserted that there is no lease deposit to be returned by Defendant B, as it transferred KRW 100 million among the lease deposit claims against Defendant B to Defendant C, and notified the Defendant B thereof, and deposited the remainder after deducting the rent in arrears from the remainder of the lease deposit. The Plaintiff asserted that there is no lease deposit to be returned by Defendant B. The evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 (the number of pages is included; hereinafter the same shall apply);

According to the results of the fact-finding conducted by the certified judicial scrivener G of this court, the notice of assignment of the evidence Eul No. 4 was as follows. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments that the authenticity of the document is recognized as follows, D is the period of borrowing KRW 100 million from the defendant C on March 16, 2015, before the notice of claim seizure and collection order is served to the defendant B.