2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On October 22, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a lease agreement with the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) under the terms “50,000,000, monthly rent of KRW 200,000, November 12, 2014 to November 11, 2016,” and “special agreement terms: (a) on January 3, 2012, the lease agreement was concluded between the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party Co., Ltd.”) and the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant lease agreement”). At the time of the said lease agreement, the Defendant participated as a representative of the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant lease”).

B. From October 22, 2014 to November 12, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50,000,000 to a passbook in the name of Nonparty Company in the name of Nonparty Company three times.

C. The instant building was under a compulsory auction procedure for real estate auction to Incheon District Court E, and Nonparty F completed the registration of ownership transfer due to a compulsory auction on June 2, 2016 by the Incheon District Court No. 151410, which was received on June 2, 2016.

The plaintiff filed a complaint with the non-party G and the defendant, who is the actual operator of the non-party company, against the crime of fraud that "the plaintiff conspireds with the non-party company, by deceiving the plaintiff, and by deceiving the plaintiff 50,000,000 won from the plaintiff." The prosecutor belonging to the Incheon District Prosecutor's Office prosecuted G and the defendant on July 21, 2016, but the Incheon District Court did not have any direct evidence that the plaintiff conspiredd with G on July 18, 2017 with the non-party company as the head of 4431,8505 (merged). However, the situation that the lease contract was concluded by the agent upon the request of G and H requested the return of the deposit amount and H did not carry out the contract properly, and therefore, H had the head of the Tong in the name of the non-party company and the fact that there was a monetary transaction between G and I. The above circumstance alone is that the defendant was aware of the non-party company at the time of concluding the above lease contract.