1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff transferred to Defendant D the Gangnam-gu Seoul E building and F, with respect to KRW 2,989,870.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 1, 2016, Defendant C leased the Gangnam-gu Seoul E building and F (hereinafter “instant real estate”) from Defendant D at the lease rate of KRW 30,000,000 for lease deposit, and KRW 600,00 for monthly rent from April 21, 2016 to April 21, 2018.

(hereinafter “instant lease agreement”). B.

On May 18, 2017, Defendant C borrowed KRW 3,000,000 from the Plaintiff. Under the instant lease agreement, Defendant C transferred the claim for refund of KRW 15,000,000, out of the lease deposit it owns against Defendant D to the Plaintiff, G, H, I, and J.

C. On September 7, 2017, the Plaintiff delegated the power to notify the assignment of a lease deposit to Defendant D by means of content-certified mail, and the notification reached Defendant D on September 11, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In determining the legitimacy of the part of future damages for delay, the Plaintiff sought damages for delay from the day following the delivery of the instant real estate against Defendant D. This is to claim damages for delay against Defendant D, which the Plaintiff will have against Defendant D after the simultaneous performance of the instant real estate was transferred by Defendant D from Defendant C, and the simultaneous performance of the instant real estate was extinguished.

In conclusion, it is not sufficient to recognize that Defendant D could not expect to perform the instant real estate at will even after the delivery of the instant real estate by Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, the lawsuit on this part is unlawful as there is no need to claim in advance, and there is no benefit of lawsuit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the above facts of recognition are examined.