1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 31, 201, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on May 31, 201.

B. Defendant C is using Defendant B’s mother and spokero, and from around 2011, the instant real estate was occupied as “D” and used as “D”.

C. On March 17, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the Defendant C on October 25, 2016, with respect to “the claim to return the lease deposit against the instant real estate,” which the Defendant C had against the Defendant B, as the claim amounting to KRW 52,901,397 based on the authentic copy of the authentic copy of the deed of performance agreement for performance of obligations under subparagraph 313 of Article 316; and (b) issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”); and (c) the said seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant B on January 13, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including additional number), defendant B's personal examination result, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Defendant C has a duty to deliver the instant real estate to Defendant B upon the Plaintiff’s subrogation in order to exercise the right to refund the lease deposit against Defendant C, and Defendant C has a duty to return the said real estate to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, simultaneously with the transfer of the said real estate from Defendant C. At the same time, Defendant C has a duty to return the lease deposit to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee.

B. The Defendants asserted that Defendant C merely lent the instant real estate from Defendant B to use it without compensation, and that there is no lease contract or lease deposit repayment claim as alleged by the Plaintiff.

3. We examine whether “the claim for the return of the lease deposit with respect to the instant real estate” exists, which is the premise of the claim for the collection of the instant amount.