1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased the building No. 901 (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 2,500,000 per month (excluding value-added tax).

However, the Defendant did not pay the rent from January 2015 to October 26, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not pay a total of KRW 37,491,800 until it sold the instant building to another person.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the rent of KRW 37,491,800, which was unpaid as to the instant building, and the delay damages therefrom.

2. Determination

A. When an assignment order is served on a third party obligor and becomes final and conclusive, the entire claim is transferred by an assignment order to the entire obligee. The entire obligee succeeds to the position of the obligee as the obligee of the entire claim under the Civil Act while the execution obligor loses the entire claim.

B. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, in order to obtain a claim amounting to KRW 111,589,041 against the plaintiff, the Induk Construction Co., Ltd., as the debtor, and the third debtor, as the amount of the claim amount from the rent of the month in which the plaintiff was in arrears with the defendant as the third debtor, up to the time of the seizure and assignment order for the claim amount, was issued on November 11, 2016, and the seizure and assignment order for the above claim was issued as the claim seizure and assignment order (Seoul District Court Decision 2016 other No. 13311). The above claim seizure and assignment order can be acknowledged to be delivered to the defendant around that time

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s rent claim against the Defendant was transferred in accordance with the above assignment order to Koduk Construction Co., Ltd., which is the execution obligor, and the Plaintiff, as the execution obligor, lost its rent claim against the Defendant.

3. The claim of this case, based on the premise that the plaintiff holds the rent claim against the defendant, is dismissed as it is without merit.