1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

C On January 12, 2001, concerning real estate listed in the attached list against the Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 14, 2011, the Plaintiff granted a loan of KRW 461 million to C, and completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 599,300,000,000,000 to C. At that time, C prepared a written confirmation to the effect that there was no lease agreement concluded with the Plaintiff regarding the instant real estate.

B. From around 2015, C had failed to pay interest on the loan, and the Plaintiff filed an application for a voluntary auction based on the foregoing right to collateral security, and on December 14, 2015, the auction procedure for the instant real estate (Seoul District Court Goyang Branch D) began on December 14, 2015.

C. However, in the above auction procedure, the Defendant reported the right to the effect that, based on the lease agreement entered into between the Defendant and C as of January 12, 2001, the lease agreement entered into between C and the instant real estate as of January 12, 2001 with the lessee, lease deposit amount of KRW 80,000,000,000,00 for the instant real estate, etc.

On the other hand, on December 26, 200 and December 27, 2000, a sum of 84,154,330 won was withdrawn from the E bank account under the name of the defendant, and on December 27, 2000, a sum of 82,384,683 won and KRW 80 million was deposited in cash with the F Bank account under the name of C, respectively.

E. On January 13, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for registration of business with the high-sea fishing business, and reported the contents of the instant lease agreement as the lease deposit amounting to KRW 80 million and the term of lease from December 30, 200 to December 30, 2020.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The lawfulness of the instant lawsuit filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking confirmation of the absence of the Defendant’s claim for return of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement (Jaean District Court 2016Kadan16521). However, the Plaintiff’s right or legal status is currently unstable or dangerous.