A. On March 18, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the Defendant to lease the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C Apartment D (hereinafter “instant apartment”) with the term from April 18, 2009 to April 17, 201, set the lease deposit amount of KRW 40 million, monthly rent of KRW 900,000 (Advance payment) (hereinafter “the first lease agreement”). Around that time, the Plaintiff paid the lease deposit to the Defendant and resided in the instant apartment after delivery of the instant apartment.

B. The Defendant donated the instant apartment to E on May 15, 2009, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future E on the same day.

C. On April 18, 201, the Plaintiff renewed the first lease agreement and agreed to increase the monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million between the Defendant and the Defendant (hereinafter “Renewal agreement”), and paid the Defendant the monthly rent from around that time to March 18, 2013.

On April 24, 2013, the Defendant drafted a lease agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on the condition that the lease deposit is KRW 70 million, monthly rent of KRW 1.2 million, and the period from April 17, 2013 to April 16, 2015 (hereinafter “second lease agreement”).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant the increased lease deposit.

E. On the other hand, around January 23, 2018, E sent to the Plaintiff a certificate of content that “The second lease contract was concluded by the Defendant without delegation of E, and the second lease contract was scheduled to bring an action to nullify the invalidity of the second lease contract, E would pay the monthly rent to E who is not the Defendant.”

In addition, around January 31, 2018, as Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2018Gadan103447, E asserts that “The second lease contract is null and void because it was by the Defendant’s act of unauthorized Representation without delegation of E, and thus, there is no obligation to return the increased deposit amount of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff,” and sought confirmation of the existence of the obligation, and it is preliminary against the Defendant and F.