A. Defendant D shall pay KRW 83,726,386 and its related amounts from April 24, 2014 to the date of complete payment.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of the building listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “instant building”) and the Defendant E is a licensed real estate agent operating F real estate, and Defendant D is a person who jointly operates the instant real estate with Defendant E, by providing a building lease deposit and office office fixtures, etc. for the said real estate business from June 2007 to August 2010.

B. On February 27, 2010, Defendant D and Defendant D asserted that they were delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to conclude a lease contract through the mediation of Defendant E, and Defendant B, with respect to the instant building No. 1 owned by the Plaintiff, concluded a lease contract with the Plaintiff, “The Plaintiff, the lessee, the lessee, the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million, monthly rent of KRW 330,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 330,000,000 from February 27, 2010 to February 26, 2011, and lived with the Plaintiff upon delivery of the instant building No. 1.

C. On May 30, 2009, Defendant C and Defendant D asserted that they were delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to conclude the lease contract through the brokerage of Defendant E, and the Plaintiff’s instant building Nos. 2, which are owned by the Plaintiff, entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, stating that “The Plaintiff, lessee C, lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million, and from May 30, 2009 to May 29, 201, the lease deposit amount of KRW 35 million was paid to Defendant D and resided under delivery of the instant building No. 2.

Defendant D, an operator of the said F real estate, was delegated by the Plaintiff with the authority to conclude the instant lease agreement at the time of entering into the instant lease agreement on the instant building Nos. 1 and 2, and showed the Plaintiff’s power of representation and certificate of personal seal impression to Defendant B and C. Defendant D verified that Defendant D was the administrator of the instant building Nos. 1 and 2, and Defendant B and C entered into the said lease agreement with Defendant D with the belief that Defendant D’s horses were the administrator of the instant building. However, the fact was that Defendant D concluded the said lease agreement.