1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 21,700,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 14, 2017 to December 7, 2017.

1. Recognizing facts B (C) on September 12, 2014, the Defendant leased the entire building of D land and ground factories by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million, monthly rent of KRW 280,000,000, and September 12, 2016, and paid the lease deposit.

The Plaintiff applied for provisional attachment against B’s claim for the refund of the lease deposit against B by using B’s claim as the claim claim, and the provisional attachment order of the claim issued in accordance with the above application (Jinan District Court High Court Decision 2016Kadan10063) reached the Defendant on January 26, 2016.

As of March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking payment of the amount of business takeover with respect to B and filed a settlement with the appellate court of the lawsuit (Korean Government District Court Decision 2016Na57841) to the effect that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30 million by April 30, 2017. If the payment period is extended by B, the Plaintiff shall pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from May 1, 2017 to the date of full payment.”

However, upon delay in the payment of the above judgment to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff applied for compulsory execution by making the above protocol of compromise as an executive title. As of May 25, 2017, the provisional seizure of the above claim was transferred to the original seizure, and the seizure and collection order (which was issued by the High Court Branch 2017 Other 549) that granted the Plaintiff the right to collect was issued and delivered to the Defendant on June 1, 2017.

On the other hand, while settling a lease agreement with B on September 22, 2016, the Defendant paid 2,170,000 won after deducting the overdue rent and other amount from the lease deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, since the plaintiff received a seizure and collection order regarding the claim to return the lease deposit against the defendant Eul, the defendant shall not pay the lease deposit to the debtor B when the lease contract is terminated, and it shall be the collection creditor.