2. Judgment on deemed confessions made against Defendant F and the Defendant limited liability company G (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. As to Defendant HCO

A. (i) The Plaintiffs entered into a lease agreement as described in Paragraph (2) of the Attached Form No. 2 as the mediation of the following facts: (i) the Plaintiffs were the co-defendants of this case, and on July 28, 2018, that I would pay the Plaintiffs KRW 17,500,000, respectively, as damages for the damage.

(1) The Plaintiff, a real estate agent, was an employee of the Defendant G and arranged the sales contract, lease contract, etc. of the J building leased by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “instant lease contract”).

Defendant G was entrusted with a real estate brokerage contract by K company, the owner of the J building. The F concluded a lease contract with I and the plaintiffs on the leased house of this case in the name of Defendant G without delay, and I had I act as a broker of the instant lease contract with this content.

x I filed a complaint against the plaintiff D with the charge of fraud, but he conspired with F.

A disposition was taken to the effect that it is difficult to view that there was a criminal intention by fraud or fraud, and that there was no suspicion by the compromise of evidence.

(v) the Defendant H Association is a mutual aid entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with I.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 to 10, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 8-1 to 5, Gap evidence 1-1-2, 4, Gap evidence 13-1 to 4, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3, Eul evidence 1-2, 2-3, and Eul evidence 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) According to the above facts, I should have explained the legal relationship to the Plaintiffs, a lessee, in concluding the instant lease agreement as a real estate intermediary, by sufficiently examining whether Defendant G, a lessor, acquires ownership.