Since the above lease agreement, the Plaintiff was auctioned to prevent the Plaintiff from leasing the store and sacrificing.

On October 1, 2015, Defendant B promised to return the said deposit KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff within six months.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C has the obligation to return the lease deposit of KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B has guaranteed the performance of the obligation. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to pay KRW 30,00,000 to each Plaintiff.

B. As to the determination of Defendant C’s assertion, Defendant C did not have entered into a lease agreement with the Plaintiff, the evidence No. 1, which is the instant lease agreement, does not conflict with the part of Defendant C’s seal image. The fact that Defendant C was made in the presence of Plaintiff C’s motherF and Defendant C at the time of the preparation, is without dispute between the parties. Thus, even though Defendant C did not have entered into a direct contract with the Plaintiff

Even if F is reasonable to deem that the above lease contract was concluded as an agent, it is recognized that the lease contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and Defendant C, and that the above assertion by Defendant C is difficult to accept.

C. Therefore, the Defendants are jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 as well as damages for delay calculated with 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of a copy of each of the instant complaint to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion