However, as to the Defendants for three years from the date of the final conclusion of this judgment, the said judgment is against the Defendants.

[2015 Highest 4383] Defendants leased commercial buildings located in Guri-si D and E on December 22, 2011 under the name of the FF and five other owners, thereby running G in the above commercial building.

On July 18, 2014, the Defendants concluded a sub-lease contract with the victim I and the above commercial building A with a deposit of KRW 175 million, monthly rent of KRW 500,000,000 for the victim I and the above commercial building A at the “H” store within the above commercial building. As such, the Defendants did not have any legal problems in entering into and implementing the sub-lease contract with the victim.

However, in fact, at the time when the Defendants concluded a lease contract with five building owners such as F, etc., the lessor can immediately terminate the lease contract if the Defendants are unable to sublet it without the consent of the lessor, not later than two years in arrears, or sublet it without the consent of the lessor.

“ Even though a sub-lease contract was concluded with the victim, the lessor did not obtain the consent of the lessor while entering into the sub-lease contract, and was in arrears with two or more sub-leases without the consent of the lessor, due to the fact that the lessor was notified of the termination of the contract several times from October 2013 to the lessor, so even if sub-leases the above commercial building to the victim, the above commercial building was terminated by the lessor, and the victim was in a situation where the contract was terminated by the lessor and the building should be sub-lease the above commercial building.

From the above day to March 23, 2015, the Defendants received from the victim I the money of KRW 175 million under the name of the lease deposit, and KRW 110 million from the victim K and the victim L with each existing sub-lease contract renewal contract, such as the victim K and the victim L, with the above method, from the above day to the day of March 23, 2015, the period for returning the existing deposit amount of KRW 200 million and the existing deposit amount of KRW 100 million of the victim L was extended.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to induce victims to deliver each property.