1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

(3) A notary public against the Defendant of the non-party company on the basis of the No. 763 executory document of Cjoint Law Office No. 763, 2012, which was executed by the notary public of the non-party company, as the DRayman franchise against the Defendant of the non-party company

(2) On June 18, 2013, this Court concluded a lease agreement with the non-party company to pay KRW 3630,000 (including additional dues) monthly rent on the instant machinery on March 21, 2011, and on October 31, 2013, the court issued an order for seizure and collection of each claim (the claimed amount of KRW 178,536,986). The decision was served on June 20, 2013 and November 1, 2013, respectively. 2) The Defendant concluded a lease agreement with the non-party company to pay KRW 30,630,00 (including additional dues) monthly rent on the instant machinery. The sum of the rents deposited by the non-party company up to May 31, 2013 and deposited the above amount of KRW 746,746,796,796.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 through 2-2, Eul evidence No. 5, the purport of whole pleadings

B. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant continued to use the instant machinery from June 1, 2013 to April 21, 2015, which was the date of the instant lawsuit from June 1, 2013 to April 21, 2015, after the Defendant deposited all rents until May 31, 2013; and (b) thus, the Plaintiff, a collection authority for the collection and collection order, should pay the amount equivalent to the amount stated in the purport of the claim, out of KRW 834,90,000, to be paid to the non-party company

C. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the non-party company continues to maintain the lease agreement on the instant machinery even after June 1, 2013, and thus, the non-party company has a rental fee claim against the defendant. There is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion on the premise is without merit.

The plaintiff can be seen as follows.