1. Defendant C shall deliver to Defendant B the buildings listed in the separate sheet.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant B.

1. Claim against Defendant C

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. On August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) as to Defendant C’s “the amount up to KRW 31,134,274 out of the lease deposit deposit against Defendant C,” as to the lease deposit against Defendant C, by Seoul Southern District Court 2017TTT7918, August 17, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”). The above seizure and collection order was served to Defendant B around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff alleged by the parties that the defendant C leased the real estate listed in the separate sheet from the defendant C to KRW 47,00,000,000. As such, the defendant B, along with the delivery of the above real estate from the defendant C, has the obligation to return the amount of KRW 31,134,274 out of the lease deposit to the plaintiff as the collection creditor of the above lease deposit.

As to this, Defendant B asserts that the lessee of the real estate listed in the attached list does not bear the obligation to return the lease deposit, since the lease contract was not concluded between Nonparty D and Defendant C.

C. As to the existence of a claim for the return of lease deposit with respect to real estate stated in the separate sheet, which is a claim for collection, the health agency, and the third obligor, who seeks payment for the collection, are liable to prove the existence of the claim for collection. Thus, the evidence No. 1-1 (Real Estate Lease Contract) and No. 2 (Receipt) submitted by the Plaintiff as evidence supporting the existence of the above claim for collection do not exist.