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

2. Defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 17, 2010, Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) to lease real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) with a lease deposit of KRW 35,090,000, monthly rent of KRW 112,000, and the lease term of KRW 17, 17, 2010 from November 17, 2012 to November 30, 2012 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and paid the lease deposit at that time. The said real estate was handed over.

B. On November 21, 201, Defendant A transferred to the Plaintiff a claim for refund of KRW 35,090,000 of the lease deposit for the instant real estate, and notified the Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation of the transfer by content-certified mail on the 22th of the same month, and the notification reached the Defendant Corporation on the 23th of the same month.

C. As the instant lease contract is continuously renewed, Defendant A and Defendant Corporation are the rental deposit amounting to KRW 37,141,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 129,050, and the term of lease from December 1, 2014 to November 30, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the determination as to the claim against Defendant A, the instant lease agreement was terminated on November 30, 2012 with the expiration date, and after the lessor and the lessee were notified of the transfer of the right to refund the lease deposit, the effect of the agreement cannot be affected by the transferee of the right to return the deposit, even if there was an explicit or implied agreement between the lessor and the lessee regarding the renewal of the lease agreement or extension of the contract term (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da4253, Apr. 25, 1989), and the Defendant A is obligated to deliver the instant real estate to the Defendant Corporation as the Plaintiff seeks by subrogation of the Defendant.

Defendant A’s duty to pay the acquisition money to the Plaintiff and Defendant A’s duty.