1. Defendant A shall deliver to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation the real estate listed in the attached list.

2. Defendant.

1. On April 9, 2012, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation by setting the lease deposit of KRW 17,061,00, monthly rent of KRW 103,400, and from April 9, 2012 to May 31, 2014, and around that time, Defendant A paid KRW 17,061,000 to the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

On November 18, 2013, Defendant A transferred to the Plaintiff the right to refund the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement, and notified Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the assignment of the said right on the same day.

[Grounds for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, the instant lease agreement was terminated on May 31, 2014, and thus, the Defendant A is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation upon the Plaintiff’s request by subrogation of the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation. The Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation is obligated to pay from KRW 17,061,00 to the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for return of the lease deposit at the same time as the transfer of the instant real estate from the Defendant A to the date of the completion of delivery of the instant real estate, the remainder of the amount obtained by deducting all obligations arising from the instant lease agreement, such

[On the other hand, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendants’ renewal of the instant lease agreement on June 6, 2014 and the term of lease extended until May 31, 2016. However, even if the lessor and the lessee agreed on the renewal of the lease agreement or extension of the contract term after the lessor received the notification of the transfer of the lease deposit claim, the effect of the agreement cannot be attributed to the assignee of the claim to return the deposit (Supreme Court Decision 88Da4253, 4260 Decided April 25, 199).