1. The defendant shall deliver buildings listed in the attached list to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

1. Determination as to the cause of the claim: (a) the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on March 22, 2013, setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 11,528,00 as to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant building”); (b) monthly rent of KRW 83,840 as well as the lease period of KRW 83,840 as from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2015; and (c) resided after being handed over the instant building from the Korea Land and Housing Corporation; and (d) the Defendant borrowed KRW 8,500,00 from the Plaintiff on July 24, 2014 and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer of the transfer deposit to the Korea Land and Housing Corporation on July 14, 2014, by taking into account the overall purport of arguments in subparagraphs A through 5.

According to the above facts, the above lease agreement is deemed to have been terminated upon the expiration of the period of validity, and in case where the creditor who received the claim for the return of deposit for lease seeks the intention of the tenant's housing name in order to file a claim for the performance, the tenant's right to demand the return of deposit for lease is not related to the preservation of the claim and the existence of the lessor's financial ability, which is the debtor, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a requirement for insolvency (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu4253, 4260, Apr. 25, 198). Thus, in this case where the plaintiff seeks the delivery of the building of this case by subrogation of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation as the creditor against the Korea Land and Housing Corporation

2. On July 11, 2018, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the above decision became final and conclusive upon obtaining a decision of immunity from the Daejeon District Court 2017Da1609 on July 11, 2018, the Defendant cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the exemption does not affect the security provided by the obligor for the bankruptcy creditor (Article 567 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act) and the bankruptcy foundation.