A. Defendant case brokerage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant case brokerage”) is a real estate broker specializing in the franchise lease agreement, and B and C is a broker of Defendant case brokerage.

B. On July 23, 2016, Defendant Korea Licensed Real Estate Agent Association concluded a mutual aid agreement with the mutual aid association established to guarantee liability for damage to the transaction parties by causing property damage to the transaction parties by intention or negligence while conducting real estate brokerage, which is a real estate broker and entered into a mutual aid agreement by setting the deduction amount of KRW 200,000,000,000, and the deduction period from July 23, 2016 to July 22, 2017.

C. On November 10, 2016, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract (hereinafter “instant lease contract”) with respect to the building for the accommodation facilities of reinforced concrete building D and E-ground (hereinafter “instant cartel”) for the brokerage assistant B and C affiliated with Defendant D, and for the same day, the Plaintiff concluded a lease contract with the Plaintiff, the debtor D, the maximum debt amount 150,000,000, monthly rent 2,500,000, and the term of lease from December 21, 2016 to December 21, 2018 (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of the establishment of the instant apartment and its site for the Plaintiff, the debtor, the maximum debt amount 150,000,000.

On the other hand, on July 7, 2016, D completed the registration of the establishment of a chonsegwon, which was from July 7, 2016 to July 7, 2018, as the person having chonsegwon F, the deposit money for lease on a deposit basis, the duration of the lease from July 7, 2016 to July 7, 2018. At the time of the conclusion of the instant lease agreement, F was running a telecom in the instant telecom.

E. Until December 21, 2016, D, due to F’s refusal to deliver, etc., D was unable to deliver the instant franchise to the Plaintiff, and the said deposit was not returned. The facts charged are that D, although there was no capacity to implement the instant lease contract and intention, by deceiving the Plaintiff and by deceiving the Plaintiff, the instant cartel was leased, and the deposit for lease was acquired.