A. On January 7, 2019, Defendant B employed Defendant D with a licensed real estate agent qualification, and had Defendant D registered a licensed real estate agent with the trade name “F Licensed Real Estate Agent Office” in Gwangju City under Defendant D’s name.

B. On February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff: (a) discovered a house of residence for directors on the online advertisement, and confirmed that G 4th H of Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was in a deposit, and contacted Defendant B’s contact address; (b) on February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff drafted a lease contract with B and 90 million won for the instant real estate at the said licensed real estate agent’s office; and (c) on March 4, 2019, from March 3, 2019 to March 3, 2021.

At the time, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to enter into a contract on the instant real estate 70 million won as the lease deposit. However, Defendant B agreed to have the Plaintiff borrow 70 million won as the loan for young households’ team boom fund, with the first priority of 90 million won in the contract, and then borrowed 70 million won from the bank as the lease deposit, and then entered into the contract again by taking the relevant loan as the lease deposit.

On the other hand, Defendant B, at the time, entered that the name of the real estate in this case was the name of Defendant C, the husband, and entered the contract in the name of Defendant C, and entered the contract in the name of Defendant C, and entered the name of Defendant C, the copy of Defendant C’s identification card and I University graduate certificate, the confirmation of the object of brokerage on which the name of Defendant D was entered and sealed, and the certificate of mutual aid issued by the J Association president of

C. After that, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 70 million from K to the category of youth household charter loan loan, and deposited as the leased deposit account of Defendant C into the L Union account (M).

However, although the plaintiff tried to move into the real estate of this case because of the occupancy date, the real estate of this case is already occupied by a double lease agreement with others other than the plaintiff.