1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 4,440,00 on July 28, 2019.

Basic Facts

C On May 29, 2017, the Defendant agreed to lease the part of the subparagraph of the D Building E in Busan Jung-gu (hereinafter “instant building”) from the Defendant for the lease deposit of KRW 25 million, KRW 2.5 million per month, the lease deposit of KRW 2.5 million per month, from May 29, 2017 to May 28, 2019 (hereinafter “the lease of this case”), and the lessee’s name is F.

C paid the above twenty-five million won to the Defendant on the day.

C paid the difference between June 28, 2018, when operating the frequency upon delivery of the instant building, and thereafter suspended the frequency collection operation and unpaid.

C on August 24, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred the claim for return of the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of the claim by C and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the claim to the Defendant on September 2018.

On the other hand, around September 7, 2018, G received a claim and a collection order (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) regarding the claim to return the lease deposit of this case against the Defendant from the Busan District Court Branch of Busan District Court (2018TTT). On September 12, 2018, G was served on the Defendant on September 12, 2018.

On July 27, 2019, the Plaintiff removed all the facilities installed in the instant building and delivered the instant building to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The defendant, in the second day of pleading by the court of first instance, led to the confession of the fact that he received the notification of assignment from the plaintiff on the second day of pleading, but denies the above fact.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the confessions were contrary to the truth and due to mistake only with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it;

The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion on the grounds of the Plaintiff’s claim as to the respective statements in Gap’s Nos. 1, 2, 5, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1, 3, and the grounds for the entire pleadings, is all the authority regarding the claim for refund of deposit and the instant lease agreement from C on August 24, 2018.