1. As to Defendant B, the claim for the refund of the lease deposit concluded on December 22, 2010 between the Defendants against the Defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 22, 2010, Defendant B applied the interest rate of KRW 20,00,000 for Defendant New Capital and Loan KRW 20,00,00 under the joint and several guarantee of Defendant C, the first three months for interest, and the second three months for interest, which plus 1% for each month for the subsequent three months. However, the excess of the upper limit of the Credit Business Act (alias) becomes null and void, and if payment of interest is delayed six or more times, the first 44% interest rate per annum, which is the upper limit of the Credit Business Act, notwithstanding the foregoing agreement, was applied, and the loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

B. The instant loan contract (Evidence B No. 1) states that “Defendant B transferred the right to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 104,000,000 (hereinafter “the right to refund the lease deposit of this case”) to Defendant B’s lessor D, Yongsan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, No. 301, 302 as security for the comprehensive obligation to be borne by Defendant B to the Defendant for the future, present or future loan” (hereinafter “the right to refund the lease deposit of this case”).

(b) Paragraph (1) and (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract") of this case shall be deemed to be a contract for assignment of claims.

On December 23, 2010, notification of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail according to the instant assignment contract reaches the lessor on December 23, 2010.

On January 11, 2011, Defendant B entered into a loan agreement of KRW 20,000,000 for additional loans from Defendant New Capital and borrowed money.

E. On January 12, 2012, the Plaintiff received an executory deed of KRW 40,000,000 against Defendant B (No. 938, a notary public, a law firm’s citizen’s certificate), and on January 12, 2012, issued a collection order of KRW 40,00,000 (Seoul Western District Court 201T District Court 201TTT23404) against the claim for the return of lease deposit against Defendant B with respect to KRW 301,00,00 among the claim for the return of lease deposit against Defendant B, and the said claim attachment and collection order was served to E on January 5, 2012.

F. On February 26, 2014, lessor D and E are not clear whether the validity of the assignment of claims of this case exists, and thus, the deposited party is not clear, and are subject to the Plaintiff’s order of seizure and collection.