1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On November 23, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a decision of provisional seizure of the claim amounting to KRW 28,980,070 (hereinafter “instant provisional seizure”) with the Busan District Court Decision 2015Kadan878, the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “B”), the third obligor, the Defendant, the content of the claim amount, and the claim amounting to KRW 28,980,070. The instant provisional seizure decision was served on the Defendant, the third obligor, the Defendant on November 27, 2015.

B. On December 2, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Busan District Court for a payment order seeking payment of KRW 28,980,070 against B, as Busan District Court Decision 2015 tea1299, and the same month.

9. The above payment order was finalized as it is because B did not object to the above payment order issued.

C. On May 2, 2016, the Plaintiff again received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the instant provisional seizure (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) from the Busan District Court Decision 2016TTTTY 8709, and the instant provisional seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on the 11st of the same month.

On April 21, 2014, the Defendant entered into a real estate lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with a fixed term of 603 square meters (area 70.1 square meters) among the buildings (total size 2469.32 square meters; hereinafter “instant building”) on D-7 floor (total size 2469.32 square meters) in Busan, Seo-gu, Busan, for two years from May 12, 2014 (hereinafter “instant building”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned received the provisional seizure, seizure, and collection order against the claim to return the lease deposit of this case against the defendant, and the defendant notified the defendant of his intention of termination upon the expiration of the lease term of this case. Thus, the defendant seized the lease deposit to the plaintiff who is the creditor of B.