1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire arguments, Eul is obligated to pay KRW 68,350,000 to the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, since Eul is obligated to pay KRW 68,350,000 to the plaintiff, as to the lease deposit claim of KRW 100 million against "10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00.

2. The defendant's assertion of the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was designated as one person from among the deposited persons, and that 56,068,200 won was deducted from the sum of 12,281,80 won, including 1,687,60 won in arrears for the unpaid amount of deposit from the above lease deposit and 1,594,200 won in arrears for the unpaid amount of deposit, and 56,068,200 won in deposit with the Gwangju District Court.

On the other hand, the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, "where the person who has performed the obligation is unable to identify the creditor without any negligence" refers to cases where the creditor or the person who has the right to receive the repayment exists objectively, but even if the debtor performs his/her duty of due care as a good manager, it is difficult to identify who is the creditor. Therefore, in cases where it is impossible for the third debtor to identify who is the former creditor and the new creditor due to the reason such as transfer of the claim, etc., the third debtor has a reason for the deposit for repayment based on the existence of the creditor's identity in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act. In addition, in cases where multiple claims, provisional seizure or seizure orders issued by the former creditor as a provisional seizure debtor or execution debtor, the debtor has a reason for