1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order with respect to the claim for return of deposit for lease of a commercial building on the ground of Jinju-si D (hereinafter “instant land”) against the Defendant at Jinju-si, Jinju-si, Seoul District Court 2014Kadan239, which was the obligor C, the garnishee, the Defendant, the claim amount of KRW 15,000,000, and the original decision was served on the Defendant on December 10, 2014.

B. On August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C with the Changwon District Court Decision 2016Gau235, which stated that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 15,00,000 per annum from February 7, 2014 to June 14, 2016, 5% per annum, and 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On September 20, 2016, based on the original copy of the above judgment with executory power, the Plaintiff transferred the provisional attachment to the original attachment for the claim that was provisionally seized in the amount of KRW 17,677,858 (the sum of the principal amount of KRW 15,00,000,000 and the interest and enforcement expenses thereon) based on the original copy of the above judgment, which was issued a collection order and attachment order to the effect that the Plaintiff may collect the claim by additional attachment for KRW 2,360,958 among the claims to return the lease deposit against the Defendant in C, and the Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on September 26, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On November 28, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a lease agreement and paid the lease deposit to the Plaintiff by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, KRW 300,000, KRW 300,000, and KRW 12 months with respect to the instant land building between E and the Defendant delegated the lease authority by the Defendant on November 28, 2013, and the said lease agreement was terminated. Therefore, the Defendant was against the Defendant in accordance with the above collection order.