1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications or additions. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The portion of the appeal to be taken or added to the court of first instance shall be “from “the first case” to “the second case” to “the second one to 9 of the first instance judgment of the court of first instance” to “E appealed appealed, but it was dismissed on January 11, 2018.”

The following parts shall be added to the 6th sentence of the first instance court, the 18th sentence of the first instance court.

“In addition, Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and Appointors (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”).

(2) On February 7, 2017, the Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan86, issued a provisional attachment order on the claims to return lease deposit against the Defendant E (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”).

The provisional attachment order of this case was served on the defendant around that time. Accordingly, the lease agreement of March 2, 2017 between the defendant and C, which was after the provisional attachment order of this case, conflicts with the validity of the prohibition of disposition of the provisional attachment order of this case. Thus, the defendant cannot oppose the plaintiff, etc. on the ground of the lease agreement of March 2, 2017, and the collection order of this case based on the provisional attachment order of this case is first fifteenth of the judgment of the first instance. The provisional attachment order of this case was executed in the following manner:

Inasmuch as Article 452 of the Civil Act applies mutatis mutandis to cases where the transferor seeks to oppose the obligor on the ground that the transferor has cancelled the assignment of claims, the transferor shall obtain the consent of the assignee or notify the assignee of the fact that the assignee has cancelled the lease deposit, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da17953, Nov. 29, 2012). However, the Defendant concluded a lease agreement with C on March 2, 2017 on the premise that the transfer of business in this case was cancelled and the claim for the refund of the lease deposit in this case was against C.