2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

A. On October 2008, the Plaintiff requested E and F to arrange for a lease agreement with respect to an apartment that is worth KRW 100 million as the lease deposit to the E and F working for D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office (Representative B).

E and F are the plaintiff's earlycar (the plaintiff's children and children). The plaintiff received contact from them that there has been adequate apartment lease quantities, and granted them the power of representation for the conclusion of the lease contract.

B. However, although E and F conspired to act as a broker for a lease agreement on the apartment of this case on behalf of the Plaintiff who is a lessee, while entering into the lease agreement (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”) with H on behalf of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff entered into the lease agreement with H on behalf of the Plaintiff, stating that “the deposit amount of KRW 40 million is KRW 650,000 per month” (hereinafter “the lease agreement of this case”), but the Plaintiff entered into the lease agreement on behalf of the Plaintiff as “the deposit amount of KRW 100,000 per month, rent of KRW 150,000 per month” (hereinafter “the lease contract of this case”), and entered the remainder into the lease agreement with the Plaintiff on the pretext of “the rent of KRW 307,201,000 per annum, 307,201,0000 per month, and KRW 100,000,000,000 per annum 16,000,000.

E and F delivered KRW 40 million out of the above KRW 100 million to H, and the remainder of KRW 60 million was consumed by them.

C. The instant lease agreement was implicitly renewed, and E and F changed the Plaintiff’s additional lease deposit even around March 2012.