1. The part concerning the principal lawsuit in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the principal lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed;

2. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 10, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant, setting the lease deposit (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) at KRW 60,00,000, monthly rent of KRW 1,200,000, and the lease term from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). The Plaintiff paid the instant lease deposit to the Defendant on January 1, 2010, and received the instant real estate from the Defendant on January 1, 2010.

B. Meanwhile, as to the part of KRW 31,228,590 among the claims to return the lease deposit of this case against the Plaintiff against the Defendant, D received a claim seizure and collection order under the court 2014TT2323 on March 5, 2014. The above order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on March 7, 2014.

C. The Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 43,749,275 in total under the name of the rent stipulated in the instant lease agreement and the advance payment for the goods purchased from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 13-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the defendant's defense prior to the merits of the case.

Where there exists a seizure and collection order against a claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the claim subject to seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888, Apr. 11, 200); the security deposit received in the lease of real estate guarantees all the obligations of the lessee arising from the lease, such as rent obligations; damages liability arising from the loss, damage, etc. of the object; and the amount equivalent to the secured obligation is naturally deducted from the security deposit without any separate declaration of intention when the object is returned after the termination of the lease relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da50729, Dec. 7, 199; 2009Da39233, Feb. 27, 2014); and the Plaintiff’s above.