1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On December 18, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with C, the owner of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”), with respect to the instant real estate, and entered into a lease agreement with C, which stipulates that KRW 200 million of the lease deposit and the period from December 22, 2014 to December 24, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and the Plaintiff paid KRW 200 million of the lease deposit to C by December 22, 2014.

B. On December 18, 2014, the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon in the name of B Co., Ltd. on the instant real estate was completed on the ground of the contract made on November 21, 2014 with respect to the instant real estate, the registration of the establishment of chonsegwon was completed (hereinafter “registration of the establishment of chonsegwon”).

C. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Western District Court Decision 2012Da227125 Decided May 30, 2013, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the entire amount of the right to lease on a deposit basis based on the registration for the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis between B and C with the obligor B as the obligor B and the third obligor C. 2) On June 25, 2018, the Suwon District Court: (a) accepted the application on June 25, 2018; and (b) issued the seizure and collection order of the right to lease on a deposit basis based on the registration for the establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis between B and C, and issued the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the parties to the instant lease contract and the creditors who are entitled to refund the deposit are not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s compulsory execution against the claim indicated in the separate sheet based on the enforcement title against B should be denied.

B. The Plaintiff, as a party to the instant lease contract, is a deposit for lease on a deposit basis under the instant lease contract with C.