1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, and the whole purport of arguments.

On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff received a payment order of KRW 62,00,000 against C and delay damages therefor (hereinafter “instant payment order”). The instant payment order was finalized on March 30, 2016, when it became final and conclusive on March 30, 2016.

B. On April 14, 2016, upon the instant payment order, C leased from the Defendant on June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) seized KRW 64,102,006 out of the lease deposit repayment claim that was paid to the Defendant; and (b) obtained a decision to complete the assignment order to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant assignment order”); (c) on April 19, 2016, the instant assignment order reached the Defendant on April 19, 2016.

2. The plaintiff asserts that, since C transferred the apartment of this case to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the lease deposit received from C in accordance with the assignment order of this case, and the defendant asserts that C is living together with the plaintiff and there is no other fact that the lease contract was concluded.

According to the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant and C are married couple, and both the defendant and C are registered as residents in the apartment of this case owned by the defendant. According to these facts, a lease agreement on the apartment of this case was concluded between the defendant and C.

Since it cannot be deemed that C has a claim to return a lease deposit against the defendant, the assignment order of this case is null and void since there is no claim to return the lease deposit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff .