A. Defendant C and D newly built a F building and G building in the name of Defendant B or Limited Company E, and, when money continued to be necessary to repay bank loans, construction costs, and refund deposit for the lease deposit of the former lease deposit, Defendant C and D offered funds continuously to the lessee who seeks to rent the studio located in F and G, on the ground that, even if leased at the lease on a deposit basis, it is possible to secure the deposit for the lease deposit, and return the deposit for the lease deposit without any problem because the studio is owned by a large number of other buildings, etc.).

B. On March 25, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a lease contract for G’s studio 404 with D on March 25, 2008. At the time, D made a false statement to the effect that “A building owner is specialized in leasing business and is not concerned about the return of the deposit after the expiration of the lease term, as he owns buildings with 7,8 bonds in a ceiling, even though he/she did not have any intention or ability to return the deposit at maturity even if he/she received the deposit for the lease from the Plaintiff.”

The Plaintiff entered into the above lease agreement and paid KRW 50 million as the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis, and thereafter, the auction procedure was commenced for the said 404 and sold to a third party on December 20, 2010. The Plaintiff delivered the said 404 on March 3, 201, but failed to recover the deposit for the lease on a deposit basis.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant C and D were convicted of fraud regarding the crime of deceiving the lessee including the Plaintiff and deceiving the lessee of the lease deposit (Seoul District Court 2013No3139), and Defendant C appealed appealed, but the judgment dismissing the appeal on June 9, 2016 (Supreme Court Decision 2016Do4718) was pronounced.

[Grounds for recognition] Defendant B: