A. R substantially operating the S Licensed Real Estate Agent Office from around 2007 to entrust and manage 10 studio buildings, such as Osan-si E (hereinafter “S Licensed Real Estate Agent Office”) owned by the networkF, and leased the buildings on behalf of F, and transfer them to F upon receipt of deposits, rents, etc.

Since the F died on December 30, 2012, the F had been delegated by Defendant C and his/her wife, and Defendant D, who succeeded to the said building, with the said entrustment and management, and continued to perform the previous affairs.

B. From the end of July 2014, the Defendants filed a criminal complaint against R on the grounds that “a number of false lease agreements with the security deposit amount to be less than the actual deposit for lease was forged and embezzled to the extent of the difference by using a false lease agreement in managing ten studio buildings, such as the above E building.” On April 16, 2015, R was sentenced to a four-year sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of embezzlement, etc. under the Suwon District Court Decision 2014Rahap597, which was sentenced on April 16, 2015. Although R appealed appealed, the appeal was dismissed on October 1, 2015, the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 9, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, among the above studio buildings, Defendant C received legacy of Nos. 302 of the Y building 302 (hereinafter “E building 302”) and Defendant D received from G building Nos. 306 (hereinafter “G building 306”) and H building Nos. 403 (hereinafter “H building Nos. 403”). At the time of filing a complaint against R, the Defendants, based on the data prepared by R and “S Licensed Real Estate Agent’s Real Estate Agent’s Office”, deemed that the lease agreements related to Nos. 302, G building 306, and H building Nos. 403 were normal, and did not file a complaint related thereto, and arranged it as a normal lease agreement separately from the lease agreements embezzled by forgery of R. D.

According to the data prepared at the time, the lessee of the building No. 302 was the plaintiff A, and the lessee of the building No. 306 is the lessee of the building.