1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution based on the Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2069032 against the Plaintiff is KRW 22,320,110.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 29, 2005, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with C on the condition that deposit money is KRW 100,000,000 for the ground floor (including the co-owned area) among the 129.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”) among the instant building located in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul (hereinafter “instant building”) and the 8th floor E-building (hereinafter “instant building”) owned by C, for six months from July 1, 2005, and that the lease term is set at KRW 1,40,000 per month for the instant store (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). From July 1, 2005, the Defendant run call text business at the instant store.

B. On July 1, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased the instant building from C on July 1, 2009 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 2, 2009, and succeeded to the lessor’s status under the instant lease agreement.

On July 14, 2014, the Defendant notified the Plaintiff that the instant lease contract will be terminated.

C. On October 15, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the refund of lease deposit, etc. on the ground that the instant lease contract was terminated and the Plaintiff did not refund the lease deposit, even though the Plaintiff delivered the instant store to the Plaintiff.

On August 24, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment accepting part of the defendant's claim.

Accordingly, the Seoul High Court appealed to 2016Na2069032, and on May 18, 2017, the above court rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 66,457,339 at the same time as the delivery of the instant store from the Defendant and the payment of KRW 66,457,39 to the Defendant,” on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant either delivered the instant store or provided the performance of the lease deposit amounting to 90,00,000 won paid by the Defendant.”

The Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed (Supreme Court Decision 2017Da240265), but on October 31, 2017, the said judgment became final and conclusive after dismissal of the appeal.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1.