A. The Plaintiff was the owner of the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government B and 301 (hereinafter “instant loan”). The Defendant entered into a mutual aid agreement with a licensed real estate agent C to guarantee the Defendant’s liability for property damage incurred to the parties to a transaction in connection with the brokerage act with C.

B. Around June 2014, the Plaintiff’s husband, agreed to sell the instant loan to E as the Plaintiff’s agent, and part of the purchase price at the time, upon acceptance of the obligation for the instant loan (i.e., to accept the obligation under the name of E because the Plaintiff’s credit status is not good) and the remainder was agreed to prepare a false lease agreement (hereinafter “the instant false lease agreement”) between the Plaintiff and E as if the lease agreement between the Plaintiff and E was concluded.

C. Since then, E and D, who did not receive a loan through the instant false lease contract, paid the lease deposit received from the revenue by leasing the instant loan after repairing it, but thereafter, D refused to lease the instant loan to another person, with the defect that E would use a part of the deposit received from the new lessee.

Nevertheless, E shows the false lease contract of this case to C, and it has changed to allow C to seek a new tenant because it was an agreement on the termination of lease based on the false lease contract of this case with the lessor, and requested C to act as a broker of the loan of this case, and it would deduct C from the deposit to receive the expenses in the future.

E. C, after accepting the instant loan, leased it to F on July 25, 2014 (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”), and KRW 25 million from F.