1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is dismissed.

2. Defendant B: (a) KRW 350,000,000 for the Plaintiff and its related expenses on March 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking reimbursement of KRW 1,911,404,781 and its delay damages against C as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da58505, and received a judgment accepting the Plaintiff’s claim in entirety, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 2, 2013.

B. The Plaintiff, while tracking C’s property after the judgment became final and conclusive, stated C’s lease agreement (No. 3) on June 10, 201 as “the date of preparation, June 10, 2012,” but appears to be a clerical error in light of the content of the above contract.

The Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D 503 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) secured a lease agreement (Evidence A 3,50,000,000 of the lease deposit and the lease term from June 15, 2011 to June 15, 2013 with the term of lease fixed from Defendant A to June 15, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). C.

On August 1, 2013, the Plaintiff is above A.

With the final and conclusive judgment indicated in the Paragraph (1), C received a seizure and collection order as the Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT24539 regarding the claim to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement held against Defendant A, and the above claim seizure and collection order was served on October 16, 2013.

C is insolvent.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 4-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On the other hand, Defendant A is obligated to pay 350,000,000 won and damages for delay, which are equivalent to the above lease deposit, to the Plaintiff who received a seizure and collection order for the claim to return the lease deposit under the instant lease agreement.

Preliminaryly, if Defendant B entered into the instant lease contract on behalf of Defendant A without the power of attorney, Defendant B is liable to compensate for the damage of the non-authorized representative under Article 135 of the Civil Act, and Defendant B is the Plaintiff who subrogated C as the obligee of Party C.