2. Defendant B shall pay 80,000,000 won to the Plaintiff.

D With Defendant B on November 1, 2013, D entered into a sub-lease agreement with Defendant B to set the end on November 25, 2013, wherein D paid KRW 50 million (in the event of a contract, an intermediate payment of KRW 30 million shall be paid at the time of payment, KRW 50 million shall be paid at November 1, 2013), and the remainder of KRW 70 million shall be paid at the time of the sub-lease agreement with Defendant B to set the end on November 25, 2013, and KRW 163 square meters (hereinafter “instant store”); and paid KRW 30 million to Defendant B as the sublease deposit, including KRW 30 million on October 27, 2013; and KRW 50 million on November 15, 2013, KRW 800,000,000,000,000 as the sub-lease deposit.

D paid KRW 3,870,00 as the purchase price for meals, etc. to open a restaurant at the instant store.

However, D died on November 20, 2013, immediately before the payment of the balance, with a acute light.

D has F, G, and H, which is the wife and children of the Plaintiff and their bereaved family members. On December 5, 2013, all rights to the store of this case were agreed upon by the Plaintiff to divide the inherited property by inheritance.

[Grounds for recognition] Each of Gap's entries and the purport of the whole pleadings under Gap's 1, 3, 4, 8, 23, 24-1, 24-2, 25-1-25-4.

The plaintiff's primary claim is the cause of the primary claim, and the facts of the defendants together do not have the intention or ability to sublet the restaurant building. After soliciting D to sublet the store of this case, he received 80 million won as a security deposit and acquired it by money and made 3.87 million won out of the cost of preparation for opening the business. Thus, the plaintiff, who is the heir of D, is liable to pay 83.87 million won as damages for the tort caused by the above deception.

It is insufficient to recognize that the Defendants conspired to cause damage to KRW 8,387,00 by deceiving D only with each of the statements (including each of the numbers) and Gap 6-2 and the images (including each of the numbers) and five of Gap 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above part of the assertion is not acceptable.

After Defendant B died, the Plaintiff is entitled to make a judgment on the conjunctive claim.